Case Sentences Flashcards
Crabb v Arun DC [1976] Ch 179
Dodgy D(istrict) C(ouncil)
Council was estopped from denying Mr Crabb access to his land, despite the fact that it was in the context of pre-contractual negotiations. CA
Greasley v Cooke [1980] 1 WLR 1306 (CA)
Greasey Greasley’s.
Presumption of reliance meant the Greasley’s representatives were estopped from evicting Cooke from the property, since she had previously been assured that she would have a home for life. CA
Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees [1982] QB 133(n)
Taylor’s and Old’s.
Proprietary estoppel can succeed even if B’s mistaken belief, is also believed by A ; therefore it does not matter whether A knows of the (in)validity of the mistaken belief, only that A assured/encouraged B to act on the belief.
Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 1752
Cobbe, you can’t have your corn and eat it. The perceived autenticity or binding-nature of the alleged assurrance from Mrs LM to Cobbe was negated by tthe commerical context ( pre-contractaul negotiation stage) in which the alleged assurance was made, and it was not for the Court to go in wiedling a Denningesque sword of justice to rescue an improvident property developer such as Cobbe, by estopping Mrs LM. HL
Wayling v Jones [1995] 2 FLR 1030
Wayling was a deserving claimant. Although Mr Wayling was a desreving claimant the Court applied an extremely unusual test to achieve justice that involved making A show, in order to dispove reliance, that B would have continued on the same course of action, if A after making the promise had then told B of his intetnion to break the promise. CA
Gillett v Holt [2000] 2 All ER 289
Halt the farm. Holt was estopped from denying Gillet’s rights to the farm on the basis of Holt’s detriment which was not purely financial, and not wholly detrimental, but was nett detrmiental. CA
Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776
Major new strand.The transfer by statute of an estate was estopped in favour of the claimant, on the basis of a promise based (non-explict albeit obvious) assurance communication from A to B as to B’s future right in the estate. HL
Henry v Henry [2010] 1 All ER 988
My guy Calixtus. The detriment Calixtus suffered by remaining on the land (deprived opportunity of a better life elsewhere) on the basis of the promise of inheritance of a half-share outweighed any advantages he had gained so that there was potential for a claim for proprietary estoppel.
Southwell v Blackburn [2015] 2 FLR 1240
Snakey Southwell. A woman who had given up a secure tenancy to move into a house owned by her partner was entitled, on the breakdown of their relationship, to an enforceable equity by reason of proprietary estoppel on the basis of his assurances that she would have a home for life. CA
Davies v Davies [2016] 2 P & CR 10 (CA)
In proprietary estoppel cases where the claimant’s expectations were uncertain and it was unclear what weight was to be put on them when making an award, it could be useful to take a sliding scale by which the clearer the expectation, the greater the detriment and the longer the passage of time during which the expectation was reasonably held, the greater would be the weight that should be given to the expectation. CA
LCC v Allen [1914] 3 KB 642
Unimpressive Allen. The covenantee must own land for the benefit of which the covenant was entered into such that the council was unable to enfroce the covenant, not to develop property, against Allen. CA
P & A Swift Investments v Combined English Stores [1989] AC 632
A covenant which provides benefit to a person whilst he occupies land but is of no beenfit once occupation is relinquished is likely to be seen as one which touches and concerns that land.
Haywood v Brunswick Permanent Building Society (1881) 8 QBD 403
Burden of Brunswick. Burden of covenant will only run with land if the covenant is restrictive, so that there was no obgliation on D to keep buildings in good repair. CA
Thamesmead Town Ltd v Allotey (1998) 30 HLR 1052
Thamesmead Two. Burden of teh covenant passed to D via the doctrine of mutual benefit and burden since the burden was (1) relavant to enabling the exercise of the benefit, (2) there was an opportunity to choose whether to accept that benefit and burden. CA
Wilkinson v Kerdene [2013] 2 EGLR 163
Wilkinson pay up. Wilkinson was required to pay Kerdene under teh doctire of mutual benefit/burden since although the benefit and burden were sepreate in form, in practice the money earned via the fee (burden) was sed to maintain the recreational and road facilities (benefit). CA
Hill v Tupper (1863) 2 H & C 121
Boat-hire Hill
Hill only had a personal right againt the Canal Co. his right was incapable of being a proprietary right therefore did not bind Tupper - (demonstration of numerus clausus)
Keppell v Bailey (1834) 2 My & K 517
Keppel’s covenant: Shareholders (Keppel) covenant with A only gave them a personal right against A which therefore did not burden A’s succesor in title (Bailey): Interest was of a type not recgonised at law (numerus clausus).
National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175 (HL)
Deserting Ainsworth
HL held that a ‘deserted wife’s equity’ was not an equitable proprietary interest however Lords appeared to assume that the court had the power to create new interests contra LPA 1925 s.4
