Do you keep Your Promises ? The Legal Consequences of a Broken Promise....

"Promises and pie-crusts are made to be broken" - Jonathan Swift

That is an interesting quote, indeed, from Dean Swift!

Have you ever had a promise made to you, and you then go about doing something relying on that promise? It is a sickening feeling, isn't it, when that promise is not fulfilled? 

This brings me to the topic of today's article...the legal principle of proprietary estoppel.

Proprietary estoppel, a principle in Irish law, is a fair means to enforce a promise made by one party to another. This is particularly applicable when the latter has acted to their detriment based on that promise, especially in relation to property rights. It prevents a person from going back on their word when someone else has acted upon it. In the context of estates and probate, proprietary estoppel can arise when a person is led to believe they will inherit property or receive a particular interest in the property and act to their detriment based on that belief. For example, suppose a landowner assures a family member that they will inherit a piece of land, and the family member spends time and money improving the land. In that case, proprietary estoppel may prevent the landowner from reneging on that promise.

Take, for example, the case of Felix Smyth .v. John Joseph Halpin and Regina Stokes, which came before Justice Geoghegan in the High Court in December 1996. The facts of the case were as follows:

This case arose from a dispute concerning ownership of a farmhouse at Knock, Castletown, County Meath. Around 1983, Felix Smyth and his father had a conversation in the kitchen. The father asked Felix if he wanted the family home and farmlands, and Felix replied that he did. In 1987, Felix got engaged to Patricia Fox, and he asked his father for a site on the land to build a house. Felix and his father had a conversation in which his father told him, "This place is yours after your mother's day - what would you be doing with two places?" and suggested to Felix that he build an extension to the family home instead. Felix agreed and took out a First National Building Society loan to build the extension. His father transferred the site to the rear of the family home to his name, and Felix gave the title deeds to that section of the property to the Building Society by way of security. He built a self-contained section onto the house, which he designed with the understanding that he would eventually own the whole property.

His father then made his final will on the 23rd of July 1992 when he left the dwellinghouse to his daughter Regina Stokes and his farm to Felix. His father then died, and Felix, of course, was shocked to learn the contents of the Will and initiated High Court proceedings claiming the dwelling house.

The court ruled in favour of Felix. Felix relied on the promise made by his father, and Felix acted to his detriment by relying on the promise made.

Judge Geoghegan decided that the minimum equity required to do justice to Felix was to grant him full ownership of the dwelling house.

He stated, "In this case, the clear expectation on the part of Mr. Smyth was that he would have a fee simple in the entire house. The protection of the equity arising from the expenditure, therefore, requires in this case that an order be made by this Court directing a conveyance of that interest to him".

Judge Geoghegan further stated,

"I find it difficult to conceive that the plaintiff would ever have adopted his father's suggestion in relation to the extension to the house if it was not understood that he was to become the ultimate owner of the entire house".

This case clearly illustrates how the principle of proprietary estoppel applies to disputes concerning wills. It showcases the court's readiness to step in and safeguard the interests of a party who has suffered due to a broken promise, even when that promise contradicts the terms of a person's will.