Henry v Henry [2010]

Henry v Henry [2010]

1. Facts

• Background: Henry (C) took care of his grandmother for many years with the assurance that he would inherit a half share of her land in St. Lucia. Despite this, he was excluded from the will, and the land was bequeathed to other parties.

• Issue: The central issue was whether C could claim a half share of the land based on his reliance on the assurance and the detriment suffered.

2. Outcome

• Court of Appeal: Allowed C's appeal, granting him a half share of the land.

• Privy Council Decision: Affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision, awarding C the half share of the land.

3. Impact and Analysis

• Application of Promissory Estoppel:

◦ Detriment and Opportunity: The case underscores that detriment can include more than just financial loss. The Privy Council recognised that C’s detriment involved "effectively depriving himself of the opportunity of a better life elsewhere," not just the financial value or expectation.

◦ Not Purely Financial: The decision highlights that the concept of detriment in promissory estoppel is broad and can encompass non-financial aspects such as opportunities lost due to reliance on the promise.

◦ Opportunity as Detriment: The case demonstrates that in assessing detriment, courts can consider the broader implications of reliance, including lost opportunities for a better life. This is an important departure from purely financial assessments of detriment.

◦ Expectation vs. Detriment: The ruling clarifies that promissory estoppel does not necessarily involve enforcing the expectation value but rather addressing the fairness of the situation considering the reliance and detriment suffered.

• Broader Implications:

◦ Flexibility in Promissory Estoppel: The case illustrates the flexibility of promissory estoppel in accommodating various forms of detriment, not limited to financial loss. This approach can lead to fairer outcomes by recognising non-monetary sacrifices made by the claimant.

◦ Judicial Considerations: The decision highlights that courts may consider the personal and practical implications of reliance on a promise when determining the scope of equitable relief. This approach ensures that promissory estoppel can address a wider range of circumstances beyond conventional financial detriment.