The claimant must have suffered detriment in reliance on the assurance, but it is often very difficult to prove reliance and the courts are normally prepared to infer it in situations where that provides a plausible explanation of what has occurred. In fact it is probably the case that once the assurance and the detriment have been proved, a presumption of reliance arises and the burden of proving otherwise is placed on the shoulders of the defendant. (See, for example, the approach of the Court of Appeal in [ case ])
Answer
Wayling v Jones [1993] 69 P & CR 170
Tags
#land #law #proprietary-estoppel
Question
The claimant must have suffered detriment in reliance on the assurance, but it is often very difficult to prove reliance and the courts are normally prepared to infer it in situations where that provides a plausible explanation of what has occurred. In fact it is probably the case that once the assurance and the detriment have been proved, a presumption of reliance arises and the burden of proving otherwise is placed on the shoulders of the defendant. (See, for example, the approach of the Court of Appeal in [ case ])
Answer
?
Tags
#land #law #proprietary-estoppel
Question
The claimant must have suffered detriment in reliance on the assurance, but it is often very difficult to prove reliance and the courts are normally prepared to infer it in situations where that provides a plausible explanation of what has occurred. In fact it is probably the case that once the assurance and the detriment have been proved, a presumption of reliance arises and the burden of proving otherwise is placed on the shoulders of the defendant. (See, for example, the approach of the Court of Appeal in [ case ])
Answer
Wayling v Jones [1993] 69 P & CR 170
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it once the assurance and the detriment have been proved, a presumption of reliance arises and the burden of proving otherwise is placed on the shoulders of the defendant. (See, for example, the approach of the Court of Appeal in <span>Wayling v Jones [1993] 69 P & CR 170)<span><body><html>
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.