Layton v Martin: 1986

The deceased had written to the Plaintiff offering her ‘what emotional security I can give, plus financial security during my life, and financial security on my death.’
Held: The statement could was insufficient to establish either a constructive trust or a proprietary estoppel. Scott J said: ‘The proprietary estoppel line of cases are concerned with the question whether an owner of a property can, by insisting on his strict legal rights therein, defeat an expectation of an interest in that property, it being an expectation which he has raised by his conduct and which has been relied on by the Claimant The question does not arise otherwise than in connection with some asset in respect of which it has been represented, or is alleged to have been represented, that the Claimant is to have some interest… A representation that ‘financial security’ would be provided by the deceased to the Plaintiff . . is not a representation that she is to have some equitable or legal interest in any particular asset or assets.’
Scott J
[1986] 2 FLR 227
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedThorner v Major and others HL 25-Mar-2009
The deceased had made a will including a gift to the claimant, but had then revoked the will. The claimant asserted that an estoppel had been created in his favour over a farm, and that the defendant administrators of the promisor’s estate held it . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2021; Ref: scu.220639