Jennings v Rice [2003] Conv 225
Judgement for the case Jennings v Rice
Table Of Contents
Plaintiff, a gardener, looked after his employer for many years without pay, on the understanding that she would "see him alright" in the end.
She in fact left him nothing in her will, and Plaintiff sued her estate, Defendant.
CA upheld the finding of proprietary estoppel and awarded £200k.
CA held that its job in granting relief was the avoidance of unconscionable result, and the “most essential requirement is that there must be proportionality between the expectation and the detriment” (per Aldous LJ) i.e. the remedy must be proportionate to the loss.
Walker LJ
In addition to pursuing proportionality between reliance and expectation, the court will consider tax repercussions, parties’ conduct, need for a clean break, change in the claimant’s situation, other claims to the defendant’s estate, and ‘other possible factors’
For Further Study on Jennings v Rice
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedRelated Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Land Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.