Ottey v Grundy [2003]
1. Facts
• Background: Ottey (C) was promised a houseboat valued between £240,000 and £250,000, along with an apartment. The promise was not formalised in a will or contract, and the promisor (Grundy) died before these formalities were completed.
• Claim: C sought to enforce the promise, arguing that the promised value of the houseboat and apartment should be awarded.
2. Outcome
• Award: Judge Langan awarded C £50,000 and the apartment. The amount was significantly lower than the value of the promised houseboat but included the apartment.
3. Impact and Analysis
• Principle of Proportionality:
◦ Expectation vs. Detriment: The court decided that the detriment suffered by C was out of proportion to the expectation of receiving the entire value of the promised houseboat and apartment. This decision reflects a similar principle to Jennings v Rice, where proportionality between detriment and expectation is crucial.
◦ Award Rationale: The award of £50,000 and the apartment acknowledges the clear promise while mitigating against disproportionate expectations. It highlights that even when a promise is clear, the court may still adjust the remedy to align with the detriment suffered rather than the full expectation.
• Comparison with Jennings v Rice:
◦ Clear Promise: Unlike Jennings, where the promise was vague, the promise in Ottey v Grundy was clearly articulated. Despite this clarity, the court still opted for a remedy that balanced detriment and expectation.
◦ Award Proportionality: The award in Ottey v Grundy, although lower than the expected value, demonstrates that a clear promise does not necessarily lead to a full expectation award if it is deemed disproportionate.
• Judicial Considerations:
◦ Equitable Relief: Judge Langan’s decision emphasises the court’s discretion in tailoring remedies to avoid unjust enrichment while addressing the promise’s impact. The focus on proportionality helps ensure that awards are fair and reasonable in light of the promise and the claimant’s reliance.