Court of Appeal upholds the decision of the first instance judge awarding Ms Liden a 10% interest in her ex-partner’s (Mr Burton’s) property as a result of an application of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.
Held
- Applying Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776, Hamblen LJ held that the judge had correctly directed himself in relation to the law. He had considered the requisite assurance was ‘plainly made out’ and context was hugely important as to whether the said assurance was sufficiently clear.
- The judge was best placed to evaluate the issues having had the advantage of hearing the oral evidence and an appellate court should be slow to overturn findings in relation to such fact-sensitive issues.
- It could not be said that judge had done more than the minimum required to do justice between the parties. Mr Burton’s appeal was refused.
