Licences and Proprietary Estoppel Flashcards
What are licences? Case?
Personal rights,moot binding on third parties, no exclusive possession, can’t be assigned, no security of tenure (King v David Allen)
Can arise in two ways:
- Right inherently personal
- Failed property rights (didn’t use correct formality). Careful with equitable property rights here. Most licences will arise where right was created orally, generally if use a written instrument an E right will be created.
What are the three types of licence?
Bare licence (Robson v Hallet) Non-contractual, voluntary, revocable on reasonable notice. Permission.
Licence coupled with a grant (profits a prendre)
Contractual licence (Tanner v Tanner) Licence in return for consideration. Terms of licence governed by a contract (e.g. Theatre ticket). If breach then remedies are personal (contractual) Tanner v Tanner was an implied contractual licence- to be allowed into the house while children of school age and accommodation was required for her and her children.
What can licences never do? What is the exception to this? 4 cases.
Bind a third party (Ashburn Anstat v Arnold - took back to the orthodox approach)
One exception to this in equity = personal constructive trust.
If the purchaser of land promises the transferor that they will respect the licence, and as a result pay a LOWER PRICE then they will be bound by the licence and its terms. Court will impose a personal constructive trust (the new purchaser is holding the promise to uphold the licence on trust for the licencee)
So if P revokes it will be unconscionable
Note this doesn’t give the licensee any right in the land, but the imposition of a C trust does mean that the licensee may sue the new purchaser if they don’t respect the licence.
Errington v Errington (bad law)
Binions v Evans
Analysis was rejected in Chaudhury v Yavuz
Lloyd v Dugdale - followed Binions v Evans, emphasised that the transferee has to have positively accepted the licence in order for the court to impose a C trust.
Ashburn Anstat v Arnold
Rejected Denning in Errington v Errington
Said Binions v Evans is good law.
When may a licence be revoked?
When reasonable notice has been given.
Remedies to unlawful revocation include:
Injunction
Specific performance
Damages
Licence could be transferable - glasto fee to change
Outline proprietary estoppel. What did proprietary estoppel used to arise out of?
Used to arise out of licence claims, but now arises out of almost anything, even mortgages can be created by the court due to unconscionability (Kinane v Conteh)
It is the antidote to lack of formality. Very hard to prove, and most cases fail.
Need assurance, detrimental reliance, and unconscionability (Taylor’s Fashions, per Lord Oliver)
It is both a cause of action and a defence. Most are oral or conduct based. Assurance can’t really come from an unsigned or failed instrument since this would be a failed agreement.
What must you make a distinction between when looking at potential proprietary estoppel claims?
Pre-crystallisation or post-crystallisation.
Pre
This is an inchoate equity. It is a property right (but you don’t know if you will win or not)
So this can potential bind a third party.
Post
Where have been given an award, so the estoppel no longer exists.
Binding a third party depends on the award: money won’t bind, but an easement or mortgage will.
What does the assurance need to be for an estoppel claim?
Commercial or domestic setting?
Commercial
Needs to be specific - sufficiently clear and claimant must believe it is binding and irrevocable
Reason: parties have more equal bargaining power, freedom of contract, legal advice, knowledge of commercial dealings.
Domestic
Needs to be clear enough, doesn’t need to be precise (e.g. Don’t need boundaries to be defined)
Which two cases would you use for assurance in a commercial setting?
Outline the other points of law from these cases too.
Crabb v Arun
He had become landlocked due to council’s refusal to let him have an easement over an access path
Assurance must be sufficiently precise
Award shouldn’t exceed C’s expectation unless the minimum equity need to achieve is more than this
Here he got an easement (a property right rather than money damages), but the court didn’t make him pay for it due to the council’s mistreatment of him, so he got more than he was expecting.
Cobbe v Yeomans
Assurance needs to be sufficiently precise in a commercial setting and the claimant must believe it is binding and irrevocable.
If negotiations are ongoing or clearly s.t.c then this isn’t enough for assurance
Unconscionability needs to be present is the assurance and detrimental reliance stages
Unconscionability is something “shocking to the court’s conscience”
What was the effect of Taylor’s Fashions?
Assurance, detrimental reliance, unconscionability
It shifted the emphasis onto the claimant
It was Lord Oliver who reformulated the doctrine and provided this shift.
Which two cases would you use to highlight assurance in domestic settings?
Gillett v Holt
Farmer and boy, detrimental reliance was giving up his career.
In domestic settings the assurance can be less clear: “clear enough” so don’t need precise land boundaries.
This case was the boy challenging the will. This is an exception to the rule that wills are generally revocable (testator must be allowed to change his mind). Court based this on unconscionability.
Detriment must be substantial but need not be financial.
Thorner v Major
Minerva’s owl (to look backwards, I.e. From C’s point of view)
Assurance needs to be clear enough. Can be active or passive.
Here conduct was enough to give implied assurance, on which the claimant detrimentally relied.
This was also a will’s exception case.
What may the assurance be? Case?
Active or passive
Thorner v Major
Active
Words, indirect statements, conduct - so long as a reasonable person would consider that he intended the C to rely on them.
Passive
Acquiescence
What will not be enough for assurance in a commercial context? 2 cases?
Where it has been explicitly stated that negotiations are continuing or incomplete (AG for Hong Kong v Humphrey’s Estates) or s.t.c (Cobbe v Yeoman).
Also not enough if C doesn’t genuinely believe the assurance. Can’t just be a mere hope that the statement will be realised!
Commercial so a narrow view of unconscionability.
What is the rule wrt wills?
What are the 4 cases to use to show the exceptions to this rule?
Rule: wills are revocable, the testator should be allowed to change his mind at any point up to death.
Gillett v Holt
Thorner v Major
Suggitt v Suggitt (left everything to daughter, son successfully contested)
Inwards v Baker (father, son bungalow, det reliance = building work)
Who must show reliance?
The defendant must prove the C didn’t rely.
I.e. Court PRESUMES reliance
At what point will detriment be assessed?
What must detriment be for an estoppel claim?
Two cases to mention.
At the point when D goes back on his assurance.
So it must occur as a result of going back on the assurance. If it would happen anyway then it won’t be enough (Coombes v Smith - domestic/family activities not enough)
Detriment must be substantial, but need not be financial (Gillett v Holt - was giving up a career)
