Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Jennings v Rice

[2003] Conv 225

Case summary last updated at 09/01/2020 16:41 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Jennings v Rice

P, 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 P sued her estate, D. 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’ 

Jennings v Rice crops up in following areas of law