Abstract
Abstract The dust should now have settled since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Guest v Guest (2022). However, in exploring recent case law, this article exposes that the rules applied to decide proprietary estoppel cases remain as uncertain as ever. Some commonality can be identified, but only in the persistent favouring of promisors over promisees. This article criticises the practical and theoretical underpinnings of proprietary estoppel and proposes further reform. In particular, the article draws new links from the doctrine of secret trusts to suggest a more just and certain basis for proprietary estoppel’s future application
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
