6. Proprietary Estoppel

Question 1

AG of Hong Kong v Humphrey’s Estate

Answer 1

No PE for assurance arising during negotiations

Question 2

Gillet v Holt

Answer 2

Statement of intention to leave property in will to C if repeated over time may give rise to PE

Question 3

Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management

Answer 3

Assurance as to specific property right required before PE can arise

Unconscionability must ‘shock’ the conscience of the court

Question 4

Thorner v Major

Answer 4

No need for assurance to be as to specific proprietary right in family situations

Question 5

Suggitt v Suggitt

Answer 5

Working for less than going rate

Question 6

Pascoe v Turner

Answer 6

Effecting improvements to L’s home

Award: transfer of freehold

Question 7

Wayling v Jones

Answer 7

Providing unpaid services to L’s business

Question 8

Jennings v Rice

Answer 8

Providing unpaid services in L’s home

Award should satisfy the equity - crucial issue: proportionality

Question 9

Maharaj v Shand

Answer 9

Giving up job and accommodation to be nearer L

Question 10

Crabb v Arun

Answer 10

Selling off land which otherwise C wouldn’t have done

Question 11

Coombes v Smith

Answer 11

Woman left home to move in with man - detriment not in reliance on assurance

Question 12

LRA 2002, s 116

Answer 12

PE is proprietary right from moment it arises

Question 13

Griffiths v Williams

Answer 13

Award: right to reside for life

Question 14

Joyce v Epsom

Answer 14

Award: easement

Question 15

Dodsworth v Dodsworth

Answer 15

Monetary award

Question 16

Sledmore v Dalby

Answer 16

No award

Question 17

Taylors Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees

Answer 17

1. Representation/assurance
2. C must suffer detriment
3. Detriment must be suffered in reliance on the assurance
4. Unconscionability