Promises, representations or conduct which leave a party with an expectation that they will receive property in the future not infrequently lead to dispute and litigation.
A reasonable approach to cases such as these is to assess whether the conduct amounts to a contractual promise (for example, a contract to leave property in a will); a promise upon which a party relies yet not a contract (promissory estoppel); an estoppel by representation or encouragement; or an estoppel by acquiescence. Of these doctrines, it is estoppel by encouragement and by acquiescence which most commonly arise. These two doctrines bear many like elements, yet they are different. They involve different evidentiary issues. Understanding that which sets them apart is important when assessing prospects and the necessary evidence for trial.
Read Roger Traves KC’s article here.
This article was also published in Proctor which can be read here.