Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly


Thorner v. Majors

Is proprietary estoppel a sub-species of promissory estoppel? Must the claimant believe that the assurance received is legally binding on the defendant for detrimental reliance to be reasonable? The House of Lords’ decision in Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v. Cobbe 1 controversially suggested that both questions should be answered in the affirmative, fuelling fears that the doctrine was effectively “dead”.2 Less than a year later, its decision

1. [2008] UKHL 55; [2008] 1 WLR 1752.
2. See eg, B McFarlane and A Robertson, “The Death of Proprietary Estoppel” [2009] LMCLQ 449; Sir Terence Etherton, “Constructive Trusts and Proprietary Estoppel: the search for clarity and principle” [2009] Conv 104; cited Thorner v. Majors [2009] UKHL 18, [31], per Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe.



The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.