Orgee v Orgee [1997] EWCA Civ 2650
LAND LAW – PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL – CERTAINTY OF INTEREST
Facts
The defendant agreed to farm the claimant’s land on the understanding that he would be given an agricultural tenancy, and bought tools and stock in reliance on this understanding. However, the tenancy never materialised as the parties never agreed the terms (including rent). In response to claim for possession, the defendant claimed that he was entitled to a tenancy due to proprietary estoppel.
Issues
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 a range of remedies: 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 defendant believed himself to be entitled to.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal held in the claimant’s favour.
The Court noted that the maximum extent of what can be granted to satisfy the inchoate equity is what the defendant believes himself to be entitled to. It followed from this that it was not enough that the defendant merely believed himself to be entitled to a tenancy. Rather, the defendant must show that his belief was sufficiently concrete and detailed to allow the court to give effect to it.
In this case, the defendant’s belief was insufficiently concrete: he had no expectations as to the terms of the lease or the rent to be paid which the court could put into effect.
Updated 21 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the Court of Appeal’s decision in Orgee v Orgee [1997] EWCA Civ 2650. The legal principles described remain good law. The requirement that a claimant’s belief as to their proprietary interest must be sufficiently certain and concrete for a court to give effect to it continues to be recognised in proprietary estoppel case law. Subsequent cases, including Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18, have refined the law of proprietary estoppel more broadly — in particular, confirming that a representation need not be unequivocal in all circumstances, provided it is clear enough in context — but these developments do not undermine the specific point on certainty of interest addressed in Orgee. Readers should be aware that the broader law of proprietary estoppel has been substantially developed since 1997 and this case should be read as part of that wider body of law rather than in isolation.
