Man developed dementia and was moved into a home.
Where is the detriment? Costello J stated that she gave up a home somewherehowever this was neither proven nor specified.
Ignored the fact that she didn’t have to pay rent and got finances.
Maybe judge should have looked at the net detriment.A stricter approach to detriment is evident in the case of
McGuinness v McGuinness (2002)
where it was held that detriment must be pleaded and proven.
There are numerous ways in which court may satisfy equity in favour of a claimant.In principle it seems that the remedy should normally seek to erase the detriment suffered bythe claimant, rather than to fulfill the expectation raised in the claimant.Although this does not seem to be the position in Ireland there seems to be a movement away.
Commonwealth of Australia
The United States has taken a similar approach. And theEnglish position seems to be a half-way house.In the case of
Jennings v Rice
the court said that there should be proportionalitybetween detriment suffered and what you were getting out of the arrangement.
Willmott v Barber (1880)
Introduced restrictions known as the five
Seemed to restrict the proprietary estoppel to cases involving a mistake on the part of the claimantThe problem with this was clearly demonstrated in the decision of
Cullen v Cullen .
Father suffered from incipit paranioia, tried ti get him into an institution.
Fled to Dublin a contacted the family through priests.
Agreed to sign over land if family agreed not to send him away.
Family won a portable house and placed it on fathers land.
Land never transferred.
Court couldn’t apply Ramsey as son hadn’t made a mistake as to his legal rights.
Court resolved issue on basis of
As it can only be used as a shield, the court protected him by estopping the fatherform evicting the son.
After 12 years the son would get adverse possession of the land.The 5 probanda were effectively rejected in the case of
Taylor Fashions (1982).
court said that the 5 probanda were not “universal” and instead focused on the notion of
unconscionability that is that it would be unconscionable for a party to be permitted to denythat which knowingly or unknowingly he has allowed or encouraged another person toassume to his detriment.