One of the leading cases on the meaning of detriment in a proprietary estoppel claim. The Court of Appeal confirmed that any non-financial disadvantage had to be weighed against financial benefit, even where the non-financial disadvantage was not susceptible to quantification; and that where a claimant had devoted his working life to a particular course in reliance on an assurance, the court could find detriment even if the claimant had not shown that they would otherwise have been likely to take a specific alternative course which would probably have been more beneficial.