land - propriety estoppel

Question 1

an estoppel stops people

Answer 1

from going back on thier word in relation to land

Question 2

the point of propreiatry estoppel is

Answer 2

to create a proeprty interest, an equitable interest in land that is capable of binding third parties

Question 3

s116 LTA

Answer 3

proprietary estoppels are capable of being caveated

Question 4

propriety estoppels can be subject of

Answer 4

An in personam claim serves as an exception to indefeasibility under section 51. In some cases, it can bind registered owners who do not fulfill their promises.

Question 5

elemenst of an inpersonam claim

what case

Answer 5

1. A representation or assurance made to the claimant (regarding an identified person)
2. Reliance on that representation by the claimant
3. Detriment to the claimant as a result of that reliance

thorner v major

Question 6

representation as per number 1 of the elements does not need to be

Answer 6

an express communication

Question 7

what is the remedy to propriety estoppel in nz

Answer 7

either expecttaion-based or relainace-based remedies will be possible

Question 8

what are the two proprietary estoppel cases

Answer 8

stratulous v stratulous
carrol v bates

Question 9

stratulous v stratulous

Answer 9

A mother allows her son and daughter-in-law to live in her house after moving out, encouraging them to treat it as their own. They renovate the house, but the son unexpectedly dies. The daughter-in-law claims an interest in the house.

Her claim in estoppel was successful, with the court finding that the mother held part of the house on constructive trust for her. The court did not consider an occupation-sharing arrangement because the mother and daughter-in-law’s relationship had soured.

important for legal advice if it’s clear that the parties no longer get along.

Question 10

carrol v bates

Answer 10

Parents assured their daughter, V, that she would inherit one of their properties, as they had given her brothers their two businesses. However, they didn’t formalize this in their will or as a gift.

V had an interest in the land due to estoppel, with clear representations. The court noted that the outcome might differ in a commercial context, emphasizing the key point of unconscionability.