L1 - Informal Acquisition (2) proprietary estoppel Flashcards
4 requirements for proprietary estoppel
(i) a representation made to C
(ii) reliance by C on the representation
(iii) detriment to C in consequence of reliance
(iv) unconscionability
Authorities for the 4 requirements:
Authorities:
- Lord Walker in Thorner v Major for (i)-(iii),
- Cobbe v Yeowman’s Row + also Guest v Guest (Lord Briggs) for (iv)
Caution w/ requirements
“the doctrine of proprietary estoppel cannot be treated as subdivided into three or four watertight compartments” = Robert Walker LJ in Gillet v Holt
(i) Representation : 5 bulletpoints
- Can be made expressly or impliedly
- Must be ‘clear enough’ for a reasonable person to understand it as an assurance they would get an interest
- Context is relevant
- Doesn’t need to be irrevocable, but needs to be ‘serious’ / reasonable to rely upon
- expectation of a well defined property right
(i) Representation - express or implied
Repº can be made expressly or impliedly = by “encouraging a course of action which it would not be sensible for C to undertake unless he was to be granted some interest in the property” (A quoted)
eg Dillwyn v Llewellyn (1862) : S ‘given’ land by F but no formal conveyance, built a house on it – held that S entitled to conveyance of fee simple bcs had spent money on building in reliance on F’s representation (despite rule that equity will not perfect an imperfect gift) /!\ not expressly decided on basis of estoppel
Representation can be made by conduct, including complete silence / standing by and doing nothing to correct person mistakenly building on his land = Ramsden v Dyson (1866)
(i) Representation - ‘clear enough’
Representation must be ‘clear enough’ for reasonable person to understand it as an assurance they are going to get an interest in the property = Thorner v Major
/!\ what amounts to sufficient clarity = “hugely dependant on context” (Lord Walker at [56])
(i) Representation - relevance of context
Context is relevant : less use of clear legal terms expected in domestic than in commercial context = confirmed by HL in Thorner v Major
(i) Representation - revocability
Doesn’t need to be a ‘clearly irrevocable promise’ bcs C’s detrimental reliance makes it irrevocable = Gillett v Holt
But needs to be objectively intended to be taken seriously / reasonable to rely upon = Thorner v Major
(i) Representation - well defined property right
o further negotiations to enter a contract to obtain an interest not enough in Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row
o uncertainty abt what land exactly farm would consist of not a pb in Thorner v Major (what C led to expect = what farm would consist of upon D’s death)
=> distinction btw the 2: in Cobbe, uncertainty as to what C’s right would be, vs in Thorner C’s right certain, uncertainty abt phys extent of property irrelevant to Pp E
(ii) Reliance - burden of proof
Once shown that repº could influence judgement of reasonable man, reliance is presumed
=> burden is on D (person who made the representation and is contesting estoppel) to show that C did not rely on upon the representation = Greasley v Cooke (1980)
(ii) Reliance - mixed motives
= where C not influenced solely by rep / had other reasons to act not necessarily a pb
=> CA in Campbell v Griffin (2001) : there is reliance if repº is among what induced C to act as he did, doesn’t have to be sole motive (bcs otherwise, honest witness admitting they had mixed motives ends up worse off than person being less honest)
(ii) Reliance - defº
= C must have relied = “been influenced or induced […] to act in a particular way” by the rep (A quoted)
(iii) Detriment - burden of proof
Reliance is presumed, but burden on C to show detriment resulting from it
(iii) Detriment - what is ? (5 eg)
Often involves spending money (eg Pascoe v Turner) but doesn’t have to:
- Crabb v Arun : detriment = selling off pt of land without reserving a right of way over it
- Greasley v Cooke : former maid remaining in house to look after family when she could’ve gone and got a job elsewhere
- Re Basham : remaining in neighbourhood to care for stepfather, providing meals and wk in house and garden
- Spencer v Spencer: devoting life to farm & giving up other options = detriment (even if also had benefits eg free accommodation)
- Gillett v Holt : C left school without academic qualifications at request of D, C and his wife subordinated their wishes to those of D (ntb in relª to son’s edº), C and W sold their own house and lived as ‘rent paying tenants’ in farmhouse owned by D
(iii) Detriment - defºby RW LJ
Robert Walker LJ in Gillett v Holt : “The detriment need not consist of the expenditure of money or other quantifiable financial detriment, so long as it is something substantial”
(iv) Unconscionability - about the requirement
U not enough to justify an estoppel claim by itself, but definitely a necessary element
=> See Lord Walker in Cobbe
(iv) Unconscionability - Lord Walker quote
Lord Walker in Cobbe, “if the other elements appear to be present by the result does not shock the conscience of the court, the analysis needs to be looked at again”
(iv) Unconscionability - mitigating circumstances
there might be circumstances where going back on promise not so unconscionable
=> eg ‘the promisor falling on hard times or needing to sell the property to pay his creditors, or to pay for expensive medical treatment or social care for himself or his wife’
= Lord Bridge in Guest v Guest
