Campbell v Griffin [2001] EWCA Civ 990; (2001) 82 P & CR DG 23
Proprietary estoppel and mixed motives.
Facts
The claimant, Campbell, moved in with a much older couple, Mr and Mrs Ascough, as a lodger. Their relationship became one of affection and he became their carer, preparing their meals, washing them and putting them to bed. They promised him he could live in the house for the rest of his life. Mr Ascough executed a will to this effect. However, Mrs Ascough was too senile to change her will. When Mr Ascough died the land passed to his wife under the right of survivorship. When she died, the claimant got nothing. He brought an action under proprietary estoppel.
Issues
For a claim of proprietary estoppel the landowner must promise the claimant an interest in the land which the claimant relies on to their detriment. Campbell admitted he had acted out of affection toward the couple and would have done the same eve if nothing had been promised to him. The defendant argued this meant that Campbell had not relied on any promises.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal found for the claimant. The claimant had done more than would have been expected of any lodger without payment. In Wayling v Jones[1995] 2 FLR 1029 it was held that the promise need not be the sole inducement for the claimant’s conduct. The court recognized that Campbell had mixed motives, namely the prospect of gain and his fondness for the couple. Therefore, his conduct was probably influenced by the couple’s promises. He was awarded a payment of £5000 instead of an interest in the property as this would have held up the administration of the estate for a generation.
Updated 21 March 2026
This article remains accurate as a summary of Campbell v Griffin [2001] EWCA Civ 990 and the legal principles it established. The case continues to be cited as good authority on proprietary estoppel and mixed motives, particularly the point — drawn from Wayling v Jones [1995] 2 FLR 1029 — that a promise need not be the sole inducement for the claimant’s conduct. Both cases remain part of the established line of authority on this issue.
Students should note that the broader law of proprietary estoppel has continued to develop since 2001. In particular, the House of Lords in Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18 clarified the requirements for a sufficient assurance, and the Supreme Court in Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27 addressed how courts should approach the remedy once an estoppel is established, confirming that the aim is to satisfy the equity in a proportionate way rather than automatically fulfilling the expectation. These developments do not undermine the principles in Campbell v Griffin but provide important context for how proprietary estoppel operates more broadly.
