Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Lissimore v Downing [2003]

342 words (1 pages) Case Summary

17th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Lissimore v Downing [2003] 2 FLR 208



The defendant was a wealthy individual who expressed various sentiments that his girlfriend (the claimant) would want for nothing for the rest of her life. The claimant later claimed that she had a proprietary interest in the defendant’s land, arising out of these assurances, due to proprietary estoppel.


A person will have an inchoate ‘equity’ in land if they can establish proprietary estoppel. Establishing this requires proof that the land-owner made an unequivocal representation that they had a proprietary interest, which they relied on to their detriment, such that it would be unconscionable to renege on the representation. The inchoate equity that results from proprietary estoppel can be satisfied by the court using whatever remedy would do the minimum amount of justice in the case.

The issue in this case was the degree of certainty which was required as to the proprietary interest the claimant believed herself to be entitled to.


The High Court held in the defendant’s favour: there was no proprietary estoppel.

The High Court held that to qualify as a representation for the purposes of proprietary estoppel, the assurances must be unequivocal and make sufficiently clear the nature of the proprietary interest the representee is expected to receive. This representation must be sufficiently clear to allow the court to determine what remedy will satisfy the claimant’s interest: this requires the representation to indicate to a reasonable degree a specific type of proprietary interest over a specific piece of property.

In this case, the assurances did not relate to or indicate any specific proprietary interest or property at all: they were completely abstract. For this reason, they were insufficiently clear to give rise to proprietary estoppel.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles