Davies v Davies [2016]

1. Facts

• Background: The case involved a claim where Davies (C) sought to enforce a promise for inheritance and financial support. The claim was influenced by significant reliance on the promise, which included considerable work and personal sacrifice.

• Claim: C originally sought £1.3 million but was awarded a reduced sum by the court.

2. Outcome

• Award: The court reduced the award from £1.3 million to £500,000. This decision reflected a cash sum deemed more appropriate given the circumstances.

• Principle Applied: The court emphasised proportionality in determining the award, acknowledging that full expectation could be disproportionate to the actual detriment suffered by C.

3. Impact and Analysis

• Proportionality in Remedies:

◦ Core Principle: The court highlighted that proportionality lies at the heart of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. It stressed that the remedy should be proportionate to the actual detriment rather than the expectation alone.

◦ Cash Sum Award: The reduction in the award reflects an effort to balance the remedy with the extent of detriment, rather than granting the full value of the expected benefit.

• Factors Influencing the Remedy:

◦ Expectation vs. Detriment: The court’s decision underscores the importance of comparing expectation with actual detriment. In this case, the expectation of £1.3 million was deemed disproportionate relative to the detriment.

◦ C’s and D’s Conduct: The court considered both C’s reliance and the conduct of D. Proportionality was assessed not only in terms of financial detriment but also in light of how both parties behaved throughout the case.

• Judicial Approach:

◦ Holistic Assessment: The case reflects a holistic approach to remedy in proprietary estoppel claims, focusing on fairness and proportionality rather than strict adherence to the value of the promise.

◦ Flexibility in Remedies: By reducing the award to £500,000, the court demonstrated flexibility in crafting a remedy that was fair and proportionate to the actual circumstances of the case.