Expenditure not necessary.
C went to work as maid at home of G.
Later began to co-habit with one of G’s sons.
Paid wages until G’s death.
Family led claimant to believe she could regard
property as her home for rest of her life – asked for no payment.
C continued to live with son looking after house and
Son then died.
Court of Appeal held claimant entitled to occupy house
rent-free for as long as she wished to live there.
Burden of proof is on family to prove claimant did not
rely on their assurances.
They did not prove this.
Stated expenditure of money was not a necessary
element for proprietary estoppel.
Lord Denning MR – ‘It is sufficient if the party to
whom the assurance is given acts on the faith of it – in such circumstances
that it would be unjust and inequitable for the party making the assurance to
go back on it’