Lecture 1 Flashcards
What is proprietary estoppel concerned with?
It is concerned with informal promises relating to land where a claimant relies on the promise to their detriment, making it unconscionable for the landowner to go back on their word.
What are the three varieties of proprietary estoppel?
- Promise-based / Imperfect Gift
- Representation-based / Common Expectation
- Acquiescence-based / Unilateral Mistake
What is the historical significance of Willmott v Barber (1880) in proprietary estoppel?
Fry J outlined five conditions for acquiescence cases, focusing on the claimant’s mistake about their legal rights, reliance on this mistake, and the defendant’s knowledge and encouragement of this mistaken belief.
How did Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees (1979) change the approach to proprietary estoppel?
Oliver J rejected the idea of a universal formula for unconscionable behavior, emphasizing a flexible approach to proprietary estoppel.
What are the modern elements of a proprietary estoppel claim?
- Representation/Assurance by a landowner
- Claimant’s reliance on this representation
- Detriment suffered by the claimant
- Unconscionability if the landowner reneges
How did Gillett v Holt [2001] influence the understanding of proprietary estoppel?
It emphasized that the quality of assurances influences reliance and that reliance and detriment are often intertwined, with a focus on preventing unconscionable conduct.
What are the key points from Thorner v Major [2009] regarding a promise or assurance?
A promise or assurance must be clear, intended to be taken seriously, and create an expectation of acquiring a proprietary interest in specified property.
How does assurance by acquiescence work in proprietary estoppel?
Acquiescence involves a landowner allowing the claimant to act under a mistaken belief without correction, creating an implied assurance, as seen in Ramsden v Dyson (1866).
How does context affect the clarity of an assurance in proprietary estoppel?
The clarity of an assurance is context-dependent; domestic contexts (e.g., Thorner v Major) differ from commercial contexts (e.g., Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row).
Is there a need for an intention to create legal relations in proprietary estoppel?
No, as explained in Walton v Walton (1994), equitable estoppel does not require an intention to create legal relations; it focuses on whether it would be unconscionable for the promise not to be kept.
What is the importance of reliance in a proprietary estoppel claim?
The claimant must show a causal link between the assurance and their reliance, which can be tested by asking if they would have acted differently had the assurance not been made, as seen in Wayling v Jones (1993).
What constitutes detriment in proprietary estoppel?
Detriment includes financial and non-financial losses resulting from reliance on the landowner’s assurance. It must be substantial and assessed at the time the landowner seeks to renege, as seen in Gillett v Holt [2001] and Henry v Henry [2010].
How does unconscionability integrate into proprietary estoppel?
Unconscionability is a unifying principle that evaluates the fairness of the landowner’s conduct. It is essential in determining whether to enforce the promise, as emphasized in Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row [2008] and Thorner v Major [2009].
What role does unconscionability play in proprietary estoppel according to Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row [2008]?
Unconscionability acts as an objective value judgment on behavior, unifying other elements of proprietary estoppel. If the result does not shock the court’s conscience, the analysis needs reassessment.
What academic critique exists regarding the role of unconscionability in proprietary estoppel?
Dixon’s critique in ‘Confining and Defining Proprietary Estoppel: the Role of Unconscionability’ (2010) highlights that while all judges agree on the importance of unconscionability, there is little consensus on its exact meaning.
