Gillett v Holt [2001] Conv 13 and 78

• Plaintiff promised Defendant that he would leave property to him in his will and even announced it at family gatherings, however Defendant did not leave it to Plaintiff.

• Plaintiff claimed the property under proprietary estoppel, and the court allowed his claim, the belief being sufficiently certain.

Robert Walker LJ

• "Unconscionability” was the key to proprietary estoppel, and the requirement of detriment was only considered as part of a broad investigation into unconscionability.

• It was not necessary to show an irrevocable promise, since the doctrine of proprietary estoppel made it irrevocable (Circular argument: it claims the doctrine makes statements definite, when actually the doctrine does not bite in the first place unless the understanding is definite itself - Gardner).

• He accepts the broad view that the court should “look at the circumstances in each case to decide in what way the equity can be satisfied”.