[2009] UKHL 18, 25 March 2009. The case relates to proprietary estoppel. David Thorner (D) helped a relative Peter Thorner (P) on his farm. Then from 1990 to P's death in 2005, he worked on the farm without a salary. Peter had written a will designating D as a beneficiary of the farm. Following a disagreement with a pecuniary legatee, P destroyed the will. P died intestate and D succeeded by first instance in asserting a claim to the farm by way of proprietary estoppel. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision. D appealed to the House of Lords. D claimed that P had intended to leave the farm to him. The issues to solve were the character or quality of representation given to D, and whether D must fail if the land was not clearly identified or had undergone some changes. D argued that the decision of the court of Appeal was wrong because the "clear an unequivocal" test applied was not relevant to proprietary estoppel. "Held": The handing over of an insurance policy bonus to D by P "for his death duties" made a transition between hope and expectation. P's oblique remarks on subsequent occasions indicated P's intention to allow D to inherit the farm. P continued with this pattern of conduct till his death. The judge was right to find that D could rely on P's words and acts. D's appeal is allowed.