Case Summary Wayling vs. Jones
Wayling v Jones
The Facts
Wayling and Jones lived together for 16 years in a homosexual relationship
Jones had owned a number of businesses throughout this period including numerous residential properties and a greengrocers
Wayling worked in these businesses and had his living expenses taken care of and he was also given a small amount of pocket money for himself
Jones then bought a hotel (Glen-y-Mor Hotel ) and promised Wayling that he would inherit it on his death made note of this in his will
He then sold this hotel and bought a different one (Royal Hotel Barmouth) and Wayling started working here on reduced wages because Jones had promised he would take over this business
Jones died without altering his will
Wayling didn’t inherit the Royal and only got assets worth £375
Wayling became bankrupt
Argued that he should inherit the Royal because he relied on the deceased’s promise
Legal questions the court had to consider
Had the plaintiff relied on Jones’ promise and in turn suffered damages or a loss because of reliance on these promises?
What were the intentions of the deceased (He had previously told his accountant that the Royal hotel would be going to Wayling he just hadn’t altered his will). Equity maxim – Equity looks to the intent rather than the form
Difficulties encountered by the plaintiff
The judge at first instance held that the claim in proprietary estoppel failed because the plaintiff was unable to prove in cross-examination that the promises that he would inherit property after the death of the deceased influenced him to remain working for Mr Jones.
How the court resolved the dispute
They found in favour of the plaintiff, he had relied heavily on Jones’s promises and suffered detriment by not receiving higher wages for running the Royal Hotel, only received pocket money.
The defence had the burden of proof to disprove his reliance, but they were unable.
Significance of case, Agree/Disagree
It emphasised
The Facts
Wayling and Jones lived together for 16 years in a homosexual relationship
Jones had owned a number of businesses throughout this period including numerous residential properties and a greengrocers
Wayling worked in these businesses and had his living expenses taken care of and he was also given a small amount of pocket money for himself
Jones then bought a hotel (Glen-y-Mor Hotel ) and promised Wayling that he would inherit it on his death made note of this in his will
He then sold this hotel and bought a different one (Royal Hotel Barmouth) and Wayling started working here on reduced wages because Jones had promised he would take over this business
Jones died without altering his will
Wayling didn’t inherit the Royal and only got assets worth £375
Wayling became bankrupt
Argued that he should inherit the Royal because he relied on the deceased’s promise
Legal questions the court had to consider
Had the plaintiff relied on Jones’ promise and in turn suffered damages or a loss because of reliance on these promises?
What were the intentions of the deceased (He had previously told his accountant that the Royal hotel would be going to Wayling he just hadn’t altered his will). Equity maxim – Equity looks to the intent rather than the form
Difficulties encountered by the plaintiff
The judge at first instance held that the claim in proprietary estoppel failed because the plaintiff was unable to prove in cross-examination that the promises that he would inherit property after the death of the deceased influenced him to remain working for Mr Jones.
How the court resolved the dispute
They found in favour of the plaintiff, he had relied heavily on Jones’s promises and suffered detriment by not receiving higher wages for running the Royal Hotel, only received pocket money.
The defence had the burden of proof to disprove his reliance, but they were unable.
Significance of case, Agree/Disagree
It emphasised