Estoppel and Licences

Question 0

Colchester v Kelvedon Co-Op

Answer 0

The deliberate or accidental failure to not use the proper formalities needed to create a proprietary right so that a licence is created instead

Question 1

Thomas v Sorrell

Answer 1

A licence is a personal permission to use land belonging to another without being a trespasser - they can cover a range of activities long or short term

Question 2

Parker v Parker

Answer 2

An estoppel can arise out of a licence even if there is no prior relationship but many estoppel claims arise out of just this

Question 3

Re Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute

Answer 3

Allowance of a licence is express or implied and can be terminated at any point by the licensor by giving reasonable notice to the licensee

Question 4

James Jones and Son v Earl of Tankerville

Answer 4

A licence coupled with a grant e.g. a profit a prendre which requires a licence to avoid trespass - NB this is not a pure licence, it is merely ancillary to the proprietary right in the land

Question 5

Winter Garden Theatre v Millenium Productions

Answer 5

An injunction can be granted for contractual licences where a licensor may revoke a licence before its expiry

Question 6

Verrall v Great Yarmouth BC

Answer 6

A decree of specific performance can be granted where the licensor is disallowing the specified activity

Question 7

King v David Allen and Sons, Billposting

Answer 7

As was explicated in Thomas, this contentious issue RE contractual licences amount to proprietary rights was confirmed here in the negative - they cannot bind third parties - could a similar movement be taken like that in the area of restrictive covenants?

Question 8

Errington v Errington

Answer 8

Denning tried to mount the argument that where licences brought with them an equity it was possible for them to be proprietary interests in the land and therefore capable of binding third parties

Question 9

Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold - Fox LJ

Llyod v Dugdale - Mummery LJ

Answer 9

Reaffirmed the orthodox view following Denning’s attempt to assert otherwise in Errington that licences, including contractual licences, assert no proprietary interest in the land and no third party can be bound by it

Question 10

Street v Mountford

Answer 10

Solved the issue of occupational licences leaving occupiers vulnerable by asserting that they are usually, in fact, leases

Question 11

Binion v Evans

Re Sharpe

Answer 11

A licensee/or can mount a claim of constructive trust against a particular purchaser where that purchaser has conducted himself in such a way so as to give rise to such a claim - confirmed in Ashburn - NB they are still not an interest in the land but rather a protection against revocation against that particular purchaser

Question 12

Chaudhary v Yavuz

Answer 12

Principles of property law must not be side stepped in order to give weight to ‘slender inferences’ that a purchaser has acted inequitably; it must be fully satisfied and indeed, justified

Question 13

Orgee v Orgee

Answer 13

A court may ‘satisfy’ the estoppel in anyway they deem fit up until the extent of the right promised and relied upon

A court of equity will rarely go beyond the maximum that the C was informally promised

Question 14

Lester v Hardy

Answer 14

PE can act as a defence to an action by a landowner, i.e. the landowner cannot plead lack of formality against the D

Question 15

Crabb v Arun DC

Answer 15

PE can also be a sword in the hands of a C who has relied on an assurance by a landowner that they will be given some right or privilege over the land

Question 16

Jennings v Rice

Answer 16

A court will seek to find a remedy which corrects the inequity sustained by the unconscionability

Question 17

Willmott v Barber

Answer 17

Five conditions for PE codified by Fry LJ - very onerous and therefore expanded

Question 18

Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees

Answer 18

Oliver J explicated that an estoppel will arise where there is assurance, reliance and detriment and it would be unconscionable to deny the C a remedy

Question 19

Thorner v Major

Answer 19

Confirmed that a holistic approach to PE is the correct way of assessing it per Lord Neuberger

Question 20

Uglow v Uglow

Answer 20

PE is by no means a remedy as of right so it must be borne in mind that it can readily be rejected otherwise formalities would be redundant

Question 21

Hopper v Hopper

Answer 21

It is essential that it would be unconscionable to deny the C this right, otherwise they will not succeed

Question 22

Thorner v Major (assurance)

Answer 22

An express promise or assurance is not necessary, assurance can be implied

Question 23

Creasey v Sole

Answer 23

Assurances can be general but they must not be vague and ill-defined

Question 24

Whittaker v Kinnear

Answer 24

Family disputes and commercial disputes need not be approached in the same way

Question 25

Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management

Answer 25

Adopting this test in Thorner would have meant that successful PE cases would have reduced to a trickle

Question 26

Flowermix v Site Developments

Answer 26

The assurance can arise from oral conduct but also from written instruments which have not transferred any proprietary rights

Question 27

Murphy v Burrows

Answer 27

Uncertainty as to the unconscionability of not enforcing the assurance will see the PE be unsuccessful

Question 28

Canty v Broad

Answer 28

PE is not a tool to save failed contracts

Question 29

Wayling v Jones

Answer 29

Reliance can be difficult to prove in practice so if there is a clear assurance and detriment then it is reasonable to infer that there must have been some reliance

Question 30

Orgee v Orgee

Answer 30

It is clear that there will only be no reliance where the C would have incurred the detriment irrespective of the D’s conduct

Question 31

Campbell v Griffin

Answer 31

A dual motive will not defeat reliance e.g. assurance plus human compassion

Question 32

Gillet v Holt

Answer 32

Detriment can take any form but it must not be trivial - it is absolutely essential as this is what makes the situation unconscionable

Question 33

Taylor v Dickens

Answer 33

Detriment itself is insufficient, so if the C has acted to their detriment which has not been initiated nor encouraged by D then there can be no PE

Question 34

Celsteel v Alton

Answer 34

A person or proprietary right can be offered once PE has been upheld

Question 35

Wayling v Jones (remedy)

Answer 35

A personal or proprietary right does not necessarily need to be given and sometimes the court will award damages because, for example, the land has already been sold on