Gillett v Holt [2000] is an English land law case concerning proprietary estoppel and a farming businesses' dispute.

In 1956, at age 12, Geoffrey Gillett met Mr. Holt, a 38-year-old farmer at Woodhall Spa golf club who kept employed a foreman, a small number of labourers and a housekeeper.

Gillett claimed proprietary estoppel to remain in possession of the land he had worked, and be given land/compensation at the main farm.

The hearings judge in the High Court found against Gillett, applying the persuasive non-binding High Court decision, Dickens v Taylor [1998] 1 FLR 806, 821, holding that a promise to leave property in a Will could not give rise to a proprietary estoppel because wills are inherently revocable.

[1] Robert Walker LJ held that Mr Gillett was entitled to a share of the property and could not simply be ejected: "The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine.

"[1] In persuasive, non-binding sources of law he noted esteemed legal academic criticism of Dickens v Taylor.

Professor Swadling commented that decision is ‘clearly wrong’ because the whole point is they are promised ‘unsupported by consideration, are initially revocable’ but they are made binding by detrimental reliance, and then there is no question of the promisor changing their mind.

The detriment alleged must be pleaded and proved…"[1]Apart from being underpaid, Mr Gillett said he did not look for other employment, spent more time than a normal employee, spent money improving The Beeches, which was barely habitable when bought in 1971, new fittings and materials, working himself, and took no steps to secure his future, for example through getting a pension.

The freehold of The Beeches farmhouse and the 103 acres (0.42 km2) of land was ordered be transferred, and £100,000 paid to Gillett for exclusion from all the rest of the farming businesses.