Estoppel Flashcards
What is promissory estoppel?
Promissory estoppel is a shield not a sword, meaning it can only be used as a defence to an action.
It seeks to prevent a contracting party from reneging on his promise NOT to enforce his legal rights, a promise upon which the other party has relied.
What is proprietary estoppel?
- When the legal owner of the property has so conducted himself, through encouragement or representations,
- that the plaintiff believes that he has, or will obtain, some rights in respect of the land and
- he has acted to his detriment on the basis of his induced belief,
- it would be unconscionable for the legal owner to assert his strict legal entitlement to the property,
- so equity will therefore intervene to prevent this.
- If successfully invoked the party relying on it will be given a proprietary interest in the land.
What are the origins of promissory estoppel?
UK case - Central London Property v High Trees House Ltd
- held that when promise is made which is intended to create legal relations and to which to the knowledge of the person making the promise was going to be acted upon by the person to whom the promise was made and which infact was so relied upon the court should ensure that promise is honoured
Approved of in Ireland in
- Chartered Trust v Healy
- Cullen v Cullen
What is the basis of the doctrine of propriety estoppel?
Delaney
- The basis of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel is to prevent a person from insisting on his strict legal rights where to do so would be inequitable having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties.
- Developed as an exception to the formalities required for the creation of interests in land and the rationale behind the doctrine could be said to be to prevent unconscionable behaviour.
What are the key elements of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel?
Thorne v Major (UK case)
1) A representation or assurance;
2) reliance on the assurance by the claimant and;
3) detriment to the claimant by his reliance.
4) The court will also have regard to whether there was an element of unconscionability and consider what is the minimum equity to do justice.
Gillet v Holt (UK case)
- the quality of the relevant assurances may influence the issue of reliance, and reliance and detriment are often intertwined.
- three/ four requirements are not watertight compartments
Approved of in Irish courts in Naylor v Maher
- case where farmhand left school at 14 and worked for little reward having been given repeated assurances that the land would be his eventually was granted proprietary estoppel
What is sufficient to amount to assurance?
CD v JDF
- distinguished ‘Salvation Army’ and stated there must be an actual promise or at least a reasonably clear direct representation or inducement of some kind, ‘conscious silence’ is not enough
Gill v Woodall (UK case)
- representation can be given in oblique and allusive terms so long as it is reasonable to the person to whom it is made given his knowledge of the maker and background circumstances to have understood it to mean he would definitely leave the property to him
McCarron v McCarron (Irish case)
- ‘in some, particularly rural areas, a meeting of minds can be achieved without as detailed discussion as might be necessary elsewhere’
- Murphy J associated a natural courtesy that results in an unwillingness to pursue discussion to a logical and perhaps harshly expressed commercial conclusion with the west of Ireland
Thorne v Major
- oblique references may suffice
How is reliance established?
Reliance is established once it is shown that the assurance was calculated to influence the judgment of a reasonable man, provided there is a sufficient causative link between the assurance and the conduct.
Wayling v Jones
- there must be sufficient link between the promises relied upon and the conduct which constitutes the detriment
Lester v Woodgate
- court must determine whether words used or acts done would reasonably convey to the other party an assurance which it was reasonable for that party to rely on
How is detriment established?
Detriment will be suffered where the assurance on which reliance is placed is withdrawn and it is the facts of detriment having been suffered which will render it unconscionable for the legal owner to insist on enforcing his rights. eg. the expenditure of money or building of premises on another’s land
McCarron v McCarron (Irish case)
- wide definition of detriment
- provision of labour on another’s land could be just as much a detriment as the expenditure of money
Bracken v Byrne
- detriment was too minor
- only detriment disclosed was the making of a planning application and discussions with a builder
Gillet v Holt (UK case)
- must be sufficient causal link between the assurance relied on and the detriment asserted
- detriment need not consist of money or other quantifiable financial detriment so long as it is something substantial.
What are the early origins of the doctrine of unconscionability?
Replaced the ‘five probanda’ laid out in the 19th century case of Wilmott v Barber.
Taylor’s Fashion Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co. Ltd
- first departure from 5 probanda guide
- court used a broader approach which looked at whether in the particular circumstances of the case it would be unconscionable for the party to be permitted to deny that which, knowingly or unknowingly, has allowed another to assume his detriment
Gillet v Holt
- clarified the ambit of the extended doctrine
- court must look at the matter in the round
- the principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all elements of the doctrine
Jennings v Rice
- essence of the doctrine is to do what is necessary to avoid an unconscionable result
- doctrine only applies if the elements of assurance and detrimental reliance make it unconscionable for the party making the assurance to go back on it
What was the first Irish case which dealt with the growing role of unconscionability in this jurisdiction?
McMahon v Kerry County Council
- growing importance of the role of unconscionability in the Irish jurisdiction
- if a court applying equitable principles is truly to act as a court of conscience then it seems to me that it should consider not only conduct on the part of the plaintiff with particular regard to whether it is wrong and willful but also conduct on the part of the defendant, and furthermore the consquences and the justice of the consequences from the point of view of the plaintiff and of the defendant.
- in this case the plaintiff remained willfully passive while the defendants built on their abandoned land, unjust for the plaintiff to acquire possession and entitled only to the market value of the land without the houses and to damages
How has the role of unconscionability subsequently been treated by Irish Courts?
Carter v Ross
- Held that court would hold a promisor to his promise even if it was made without consideration where it would be unconscionable to permit him to resile from the promise he had made
- Unconscionability cannot be invoked where there was no assurance or sufficient detriment to give rise to proprietary estoppel
Owens v Duggan
- referred to the dicta of Finley P in McMahon, took the view that the requirement of detriment must be viewed as part of a broader analysis as to whether the rescinding of a representation would be unconscionable
Coyle v Finnegan
- there had been express representation by the deceased to the plaintiff that if they assisted in the running of the farm it would be left to them
- traditional probanda fulfilled
- unconscionable if they were not recompensed for the labours and services he provided to the deceased over a period of years
- equity required he be reasonably renumerated by way of a charge or lien on the lands for the sum equivalent to such
How has unconscionability been dealt with by English courts in recent times?
Cobbe v Yeowmans Row Management Ltd
- Took a strong stand against unconscionability.
- cannot base a claim for proprietary estoppel on unconscionability alone, three traditional elements must be present
- must state the actual nature of the right you are claiming over the property
Thorner v Major
- rejected the limitations set out in Cobbe and gave a more flexible approach towards the concept of unconscionability where proprietary estoppel is not invoked in a commercial context
How are remedies determined in cases of proprietary estoppel?
The raising of an estoppel does not give rise to a particular form of remedy and the remedy required to satisfy equity vary according to the circumstances of the case.
Crabb v Arun District Council
- Having analysed and assessed the relationship and conduct between the parties the court should answer 3 questions
1) Is there an equity established?
2) What is the extent of the equity if one is established?
3) What is the relief appropriate to satisfy that equity?
Biehler suggests that that courts now tend to ask what is the minimum equity to do justice and avoid an unconscionable and disproportionate result.
Biehler notes that although Irish courts have yet to set out the principles which influence the conclusion they reach in relation to remedies it seems clear they are using an expectations based model as s tarting point and scaling this back where necessary to achieve a fair and proportionate outcome having regard to the plaintiff’s detrimental reliance and other relevant factors such as the impact of any order on the defendant or third parties.
