Equitable Estoppel

Question 1

Equitable Estoppel - Estoppel by Representation

Jorden v Money [1845]

Answer 1

• Lord Cranworth: If a person makes a false representation to another and the other acts on it, the person
  who made it won’t be allowed claim it was false after. Applies to representations of existing fact only.
  Limitations: (1) only accommodates statements of existing fact not promises of intention (2) shield not a
  sword (only a defence) (3) acts as a complete bar to Ps rights e.g. right to restitution

Question 2

Equitable Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel

General rule?

Answer 2

Prom-E enforces promises of future intention. It stops a promisor reneging on his promise if he intended or it was reasonable that his promise be relied, and if the promisee did in fact rely on it to his detriment.

Question 3

Equitable Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co [1877] - Deferred repairs

Answer 3

• P + D landlord + tenant. Under a provision in the lease, P gave notice to D to do repairs within 6 mths
• After, they entered into negotiates re sale of the property by P to D. P promised D the repair work could be deferred pending the outcome of the negotiations. The negotiations collapsed.
• P then sought to have the lease forfeited as D hadn’t carried out the repairs.
• HOL held P was estopped from going back on his promise that repairs could be deferred.

Question 4

Equitable Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel

Central London Property Trust v High Trees [1947]

Answer 4

• P + D landlord + tenant entered into long-term lease of block of flats. WWII hit. London evacuated.
• Thus D unable to sub-let all flats. P promised to accept reduced rent. War ended, flats sub-let again
• P sued for back rent arguing the variation was unenforceable as D gave no consideration for this
  promise. Held P was estopped from recovering the back rent during the war.

Question 4

Equitable Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel

Central London Property Trust v High Trees [1947]

Answer 4

• P + D landlord + tenant entered into long-term lease of block of flats. WWII hit. London evacuated.
• Thus D unable to sub-let all flats. P promised to accept reduced rent. War ended, flats sub-let again
• P sued for back rent arguing the variation was unenforceable as D gave no consideration for this
  promise. Held P was estopped from recovering the back rent during the war.

Question 5

Equitable Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel - Defence Only, A Shield and not a Sword

Combe v Combe [1951]:

Answer 5

UKCA confirmed prom est could only be used as a shield not a sword

Question 6

Equitable Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel - Defence Only, A Shield and not a Sword

Re Wyvern Developments [1974] UK

Answer 6

• UK rejected that it cannot confer a cause of action and allowed it.

Question 7

Equitable Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel - Defence Only, A Shield and not a Sword

Waltons Stores v Maher [1988] Australia - Lease - 40% Constructed

Answer 7

• P and D negotiating lease of land by P to D. Plan: P demolish a building on the land and erect a new one to D’s specifications. Negotiations neared ending, D suggested they were about to sign
• P began to demolishing. Then D had 2nd thoughts & instructed solicitor to go slow in finalising the
  contract, but knew P started. Month later, D withdrew (built 40%) P allowed use prom-E as cause of action

Question 8

Equitable Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel - Defence Only, A Shield and not a Sword

Cullen v Cullen [1962]:

Answer 8

Approved the limitation in Ireland

Question 9

Equitable Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel - Defence Only, A Shield and not a Sword

Re JR, a Ward of Court [1993]

Answer 9

Sword in Ireland *

• Committee of elderly ward wanted to sell his house (dilapidated). He’d lived there for years with R, having represented to her it’d be her home for the rest of her life. Left everything in will to R.
• Held a case of Prom-E made: R acted to detriment in reliance on rep. Held entitled to life interest in house.

Question 10

Equitable Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel - Defence Only, A Shield and not a Sword

Association of GPs Ltd v Minister for Health [1995

Answer 10

Reasserted the restriction

- Doctrine of equitable PE cannot create a new cause of action where none existed before

Question 11

Equitable Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel - Defence Only, A Shield and not a Sword

Daly v Minister for Marine [2001]:

Answer 11

No mention of the limitation. Appeared to allow sword. Interesting case

Question 12

Equitable Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel - Need Pre-Existing Contractual Relationship

Cullen v Cullen [1962]

Answer 12

No pre-existing CR here *
- P told wife he’d transfer the property to her. On basis of this rep, she and son built a portable house on the land. P then sought injunction to stop them doing so. Held estopped by his conduct from asserting title

Question 13

Equitable Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel - Need Pre-Existing Contractual Relationship

Revenue Commissioners v Moroney [1972]:

Answer 13

Also no pre-existing CR. Defence against R for estate duty

Question 14

Equitable Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel - Detriment

In Australia: Waltons Stores v Maher [1988

Answer 14

Australia’s HC emphasised unconscionability is enough

Question 15

Equitable Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel - Detriment

Daly v Minister for Marine [2001

Answer 15

SC confirmed must have detrimental reliance

Question 16

Proprietary Estoppel

How does this work?

Answer 16

Where a person acts to their detriment based on a representation that they will acquire an interest in property,
the person may be able to acquire that interest by way of proprietary estoppel (PE).

Question 17

Proprietary Estoppel

Re Basham [1986] How to raise a PE

Answer 17

• Where Z is seeking to raise a PE against X, Z must prove:
  (a) That X made an assurance that Z had or would be given an interest in X’s property,
  (b) That Z relied on that assurance and
  (c) That Z suffered detriment as a result of such reliance.

Question 18

Proprietary Estoppel - Assurance

CF v JDF [2005] Ireland

Answer 18

• IESC said there must have been a reasonably clear, direct representation or inducement of some kind.
• This casts doubt on conscious silence being able to constitute assurance.

Question 19

Proprietary Estoppel - Assurance

Gill v Woodall [2009] UK - Contrast Irish Position

Answer 19

• Held a rep could be sufficient for PE even if not express but made in oblique + allusive terms as long as given the background the person to whom it was made understood a definite plan: leave property to him.

Question 20

Proprietary Estoppel - Reliance + Detriment = Detrimental Reliance

McCarron v McCarron [1997] - Labour

Answer 20

• IESC suggested the provision of Z’s own labour or services in respect of X’s property can be detriment.

Question 21

Proprietary Estoppel - Reliance + Detriment = Detrimental Reliance

Gillett v Holt [2000] - Left School - 40y’s

Answer 21

• Detriment here was P leaving school to work on deceased’s farm for 40 yrs on belief he’d inherit it.

Question 22

Proprietary Estoppel - Reliance + Detriment = Detrimental Reliance

Bracken v Byrne [2006]

Answer 22

• Held the only detriment was making a planning app + brief discussions w builder: not enough.

Question 23

Proprietary Estoppel - Reliance + Detriment = Detrimental Reliance

McDonagh v Denton [2005] - 3rd party SP

Answer 23

• P claimed he’d bought the disputed lands. D said no. Held spending + maintenance not suff detriment but, on foot of this, sold it to a 3rd party+ was being sued for specific performance by them. This was detriment

Question 24

Proprietary Estoppel - Reliance + Detriment = Detrimental Reliance

Joyce v Epsom Borough Council [2012]

Answer 24

D need not be aware of the detriment suffered by P for P to succeed

Question 25

Proprietary Estoppel

What are the three traditional categories of proprietary estoppel?

Answer 25

Traditionally 3 categories of situation where proprietary estoppel would arise: Imperfect gifts, common expectation and mistake. Recently, a more general concept of unconscionability has been used to establish PE.

Question 26

Proprietary Estoppel - Imperfect Gifts

What is the general rule?

Answer 26

If X wants to give his property to Z for no consideration, he can transfer it as a gift. For it to be enforceable, X must transfer the property in the way law requires it to make Z owner of it. Depends on the circumstances:
(a) If X wants to make the gift on his death, he can do so by means of a will.
(b) If X wants to make an inter-vivos gift, (i) the transfer of real property must be in writing but (ii) the transfer of personal property requires mere delivery of it to the donee.
Until transferred, the gift is imperfect + generally equity won’t enforce imperfect gifts. But PE is an exception.

Question 27

Proprietary Estoppel - Imperfect Gifts

Dillwyn v Llewelyn [1862]

Answer 27

• P’s dad promised to transfer land to P. P built house on the land. Dad knew + consented. Informal memo showed it was dad’s intention to give it to P but not sufficient to transfer. Imperfect gift.
• Dad died. In will, he left it on trust for other parties.
• HOL held the fee simple should be transferred to P. Promise of gift made (assurance) and on the strength thereof (reliance) w dad’s knowledge, P incurred big expenditure on the land (detriment).

Question 28

Proprietary Estoppel - Imperfect Gifts

Pascoe v Turner [1979]

Answer 28

• Parties lived together for long time in P’s house. P left to live with other woman, but assured D she could remain in the house + it would belong to her. D did repairs on it. P then sued for possession.
• Held D entitled to conveyance of the fee simple.

Question 29

Proprietary Estoppel - Imperfect Gifts

Smyth v Halpin [1997]

Answer 29

• P asked dad to give him a site he could build house on. Dad said unnecessary as he’d have the family home after his mum’s death + suggested P build an extension to it (assurance). P did (reliance + detriment)
• Dad left house to wife for life + rest to daughter, P sued for interest. Held P entitled to fee simple.

Question 30

Proprietary Estoppel - Common Expectation

General Rule?

Answer 30

PE may arise where parties have dealt with each other so as to give rise to a common expectation that one of them would acquire a certain interest in the other’s property (Pascoe and Smyth could be a CE).

Question 31

Proprietary Estoppel - Common Expectation

Ramsden v Dyson [1866] set it out

Answer 31

• If a man, under a verbal agreement w a landlord for a certain interest in land, under an expectation, created or encouraged by the landlord that he shall have a certain interest, takes possession of the land with the consent of the landlord and on the faith of such promise w knowledge of landlord and w/o objection lays out money on the land, a court of equity will compel the landlord to give effect to such promise/expectation

Question 32

Proprietary Estoppel - Common Expectation

Inwards v Baker [1965]

Answer 32

• Deceased encouraged son (D) to build house at D’s own expense on deceased’s land. D did so on the expectation encouraged by deceased that he’d be permitted to remain in occupation.
• Held D had an equity entitling him to live in the house for as long as he wished. In effect, deceased + his trustees on his death became estopped from denying that D’s licence to occupy was an irrevocable one.

Question 33

Proprietary Estoppel - Common Expectation

Crabb v Arun District Council [1976]

Answer 33

• D led P to believed he could have access to his own (P’s) land via a road belonging to D. Relying on this,
  P allowed his land to become otherwise landlocked. P held entitled, by PE, to a right of way as promised.

Question 34

Proprietary Estoppel - Common Expectation

AG of Hong Kong v Humphrey’s Estate [1987]

Answer 34

Important to stress that detrimental reliance on self-induced expectation does not create a PE:

• P + D reached agreement express ‘subject to contract’ re the acquisition of D’s flats by P in exchange for grant of lease of specific property by P to D. P took possession of flats + fitted them out for civil servants.
• Before contract executed, D withdrew from transaction. P sued. D counterclaimed for order of possession, and P raised the defence of estoppel.
• Held to found estoppel, P had to prove not only that it had, to the knowledge of D acted to its detriment but also that D created/encouraged an expectation that they wouldn’t withdraw + P relied on this.
• Held D hadn’t encouraged it. No PE: H began + continued on terms that either party may change mind

Question 35

Proprietary Estoppel - Unilateral Mistake

General rule?

Answer 35

A unilateral mistake as to the legal ownership of property by the party who acts to his detriment may found a PE but there must be some conduct on the part of the legal owner that affects his conscience.

Question 36

Proprietary Estoppel - Unilateral Mistake

Ramsden v Dyson [1866]

Answer 36

• If a stranger starts to build on my land thinking it’s his own, and I, knowing his mistake, abstain from setting him right and leave him to persevere, a court of equity won’t allow me afterwards assert my title to the land on which he spent money on the mistake that the land was his own. Two things required:
  (a) The person spending the money thinks he is building on his own land
  (b) The real owner at the time of the expenditure knows the land belongs to him and not to the person spending the money in the belief that he is the owner.
• Doesn’t apply where a tenant builds on his landlords land as he knows that it was not his.

Question 37

Proprietary Estoppel - Unilateral Mistake

O’Callaghan v Ballincollig Holdings [1993] - not idle if its a tenant

Answer 37

• P claimed acquired title to a house by adverse possession. D rejected this + served notice to quit.
• P sought declaration of their title or a lien over it for works done based on PE. D counterclaimed for possession. P argued D stood idly by while they spent money: can’t repossess w/o paying compensation.
• Held as long as P’s tenancy subsisted, D not entitled to interfere with possession. D wasn’t entitled to interfere with their possession (as their landlord) so therefore he did not stand idly by

Question 38

Proprietary Estoppel - Unilateral Mistake

Wilmott v Barber [1880]

Answer 38

• A lease prohibited assignment w/o lessor’s consent. The lessee let part of the lands to P w/o consent.
• Neither P / lessor aware of covenant. P took possession + spent money improving it + lessor knew. P then tried exercise option to buy lessee’s interest, but refused as lessor hadn’t given consent. P sought SP.
• Held lessor not estopped by his conduct in acquiescing in the expenditure as he wasn’t aware of his right
• Set out the five probanda:
  (a) P must have made a mistake as to his legal rights
  (b) P must’ve expended money or done an act (not nec on D’s land) on the faith of this mistake belief
  (c) D (possessor of legal right) must know his right exists that’s inconsistent w the one claimed by P
  (d) D must know of P’s mistaken belief of his rights (if not, nothing calls on him to assert his rights)
  (e) D must’ve encouraged P to spends money/do acts directly or by abstaining from asserting his right

Question 39

Proprietary Estoppel - Unilateral Mistake

Lester v Woodgate [2010]: - Probanda good proxy ofr uncon

Answer 39

Courts recognised the 5 probanda need not be satisfied in every case but are a
useful test of what may amount to unconscionable behaviour

Question 40

Proprietary Estoppel - Unconscionability

General rule?

Answer 40

The move towards a test based on unconscionability was a reaction against the 5 probana. Idea: a PE arises when D, in asserting his legal rights, is taking advantage of P in a manner that’s unconscionable, unequitable
and unjust. The problem with this test is vagueness: one judge may consider it unconscionable, other doesn’t

Question 41

Proprietary Estoppel - Unconscionability

Taylor’s Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees [1982]

Answer 41

• Question: is it necessary in all cases that D knew of P’s mistaken belief? NO: Oliver J rejected that the 5 probanda need to be present in all cases. They do not. They are merely relevant factors to consider.
• No need for set rules dictating the considerations that’ll persuade court that a departure by the acquiescing party from the previous state of law/fact is so unconscionable that a court of equity will interfere. Flexible.

Question 42

Proprietary Estoppel - Unconscionability

Lim Teng Huan v Ang Swee Chuan [1992]

Answer 42

• Parties jointly bought land. Agreement: P acknowledged (i) consent to D building house on it + (ii) he’d transfer his interest to D for unspecified land D hoped to acquire. D built house. P sued for his ½ share
• Held D built it in reliance on the agreement + it’d be unconscionable for P to renege on the assumption that D would get the sole interest on paying P compensation. P was thus estopped from asserting his title.
• It’s enough if it’s unconscionable for representor to go back on the assumption he permitted other to make

Question 43

Proprietary Estoppel - Unconscionability

Lim Teng Huan v Ang Swee Chuan [1992]

Answer 43

• Parties jointly bought land. Agreement: P acknowledged (i) consent to D building house on it + (ii) he’d transfer his interest to D for unspecified land D hoped to acquire. D built house. P sued for his ½ share
• Held D built it in reliance on the agreement + it’d be unconscionable for P to renege on the assumption that D would get the sole interest on paying P compensation. P was thus estopped from asserting his title.
• It’s enough if it’s unconscionable for representor to go back on the assumption he permitted other to make

Question 44

Proprietary Estoppel - Unconscionability

Gillett v Holt [2001] - Assurance - Deteriorated - Reliance focus

Answer 44

• P spent life working on D1’s farm. D1 repeatedly made promises + assurance over yrs that P’d get farm.
• 1992: P + D1’s relationship deteriorated. 1995: P sacked. D1 made will in favour of D2.
• P sought relief on PE. Trial judge rejected: no irrevocable promise that P would inherit it.
• Appeal: Held to focus on the promisor reserving himself to the power to change his mind misses the fundamental point that all estoppel claims concern promises that are initially revocable.
• What later makes them binding (thus irrevocable) is promisee’s detrimental reliance on them. Once that occurs, promisor can’t change his mind. PE arose: P got fee simple + money for exclusion from farm bus

Question 45

Proprietary Estoppel - Unconscionability

McMahon v Kerry County Council [1981]

Answer 45

• P bought land to build school. Plan abandoned. Didn’t visit for 3 yrs. Then discovered D (knew of P’s purchase) trying to build on it. P complained so stopped. 4 yrs later D built 2 houses. Yr later P discovered
• P sued for possession: Held P didn’t stay wilfully passive while D built but unjust to let them recover: entitled to market value of site w/o house +damages. Must assess both’s conduct + consequences of order

Question 46

Proprietary Estoppel - Unconscionability

Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management [2008] Narrow test

Answer 46

• D owned land w residential development potential. Negotiations to sell to P. Reached oral agr on core terms but no written contract. They regarded it as ‘binding in honour’ but knew it wasn’t legally binding.
• Pursuant to agreement, P sought planning permission for a residential development + encouraged by D
• P spent money + time. PP obtained. D then tried to re-negotiate core terms: increasing price £12m to 20m.
• Scott L rejected a test based just on unconscionability: approving Muchinski v Dodds, noted ‘prop rights need to be governed by legal principles + not a mix of judicial discretion, subjective views of fairness etc.
• Lord Scott’s essential holdings were:
  (a) A proprietary estoppel operates to protect a right to or over property
  (b) It does this by preventing a person from asserting / denying something that’s inconsistent w that right
  (c) It follows from these that if a P seeks to raise PE, he must identify with precision:
  (i) The nature of the right to or over property which an estoppel is necessary to protect and
  (ii) The content of the estoppel i.e. what the Dis prevented from asserting or denying
  In this case neither the nature of the right or the content of the estoppel were certain
  (d) It’s not sufficient for P to merely identify unconscionable conduct on the part of the D.
• This is a strict approach BUT this was parties in a commercial relationship w experience in development + negotiations. THUS it would not apply to Gillett nor Thorner v Major

Question 47

Proprietary Estoppel - Unconscionability

Thorner v Major [2009] UK - 30y - Oblique - Contextual

Answer 47

• P worked unpaid on cousin’s farm for 30 yrs. No explicit promise but oblique references P would get farm
• P consequently didn’t pursue other opportunities. Died intestate but held PE established.
• Scott L held an assurance must be clear + unambiguous but Neuberger said the words must be assessed in context + not be too rigorous assessing clear + unambiguous as statement may have more than 1 meaning. Walker said assurance should be ‘clear enough’ but depended on the context. Conduct here enough.

Question 48

Proprietary Estoppel - Unconscionability

Naylor v Maher [2018] IECA approved Thorner

Answer 48

• P worked unpaid on deceased’s farm for many yrs. Held the promises + reps made by deceased to P were intended by him to be relied on by P and they had been relied on + it was reasonable for P to rely on them.
• CA upheld finding P should get farm but not €150k that was under a 2nd later will (alternative bequest)

Question 49

Proprietary Estoppel - Unconscionability

Coyle v Finnegan [2013] IEHC - Charge - Remuneration for D

Answer 49

• Held P who worked on farm of deceased on assurance it’d be left to him suffered detriment. Held should have a charge on the land for sum equal to proper remuneration: concept of unconscionability in judgment

Question 50

Proprietary Estoppel - Unconscionability

Finnegan v Hand [2016] IEHC - 38y - Ind/Obli - ConT

Answer 50

• P worked on farm of deceased for 38yrs on modest pay. Said D made promises over yrs that led P to believe he’d get it. Court felt many of the promises indirect/oblique. Not named in will. Sued on PE basis
• Held due to the uncertainty of the alleged promises, difficulty in finding ingredients of PE (assurance, reliance, detriment) so used constructive trust to find in P’s favour instead.

Question 51

Proprietary Estoppel - Remedies

Naylor v Maher [2012]

Answer 51

The court seemed to apply the expectation approach in finding P should get the lands

Question 52

Proprietary Estoppel - Remedies

Coyle v Finnegan [2013]

Answer 52

• This was scaled back to remuneration from the lands commensurate with the disadvantage suffered. Thus it appears the court may start on expectation based approach but modify when necessary