Licences: Proprietary Estoppel Flashcards
King v David Allen Ltd 1916
A licence was granted allowing the fixing of advertisements to the wall of a cinema.
The licensor then granted a lease of the cinema to a third party.
Held: The grant of the lease had ended the contractual licence.
Winter Garden Theatre Ltd v Millennium Productions Ltd 1947
Owners of theatre licenced it to Millennium productions for six months.
Later have one month notice to leave.
Held: License can be revoked with reasonable notice.
Here, valid.
Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v Cobbe 2008
Company agreed to demolish flats to make way for Cobbe to erect houses.
Excess of sale to be shared between parties.
Planning permission obtained, company demanded more money.
Cobbe claimed company was estopped from going back on the agreement.
Held: No property rights existed, neither party had insisted on legally binding arrangement.
Estoppel did not apply.
Thorner v Major 2009
D had worked at P’s farm without payment.
Had hoped to inherit one day.
Many hints given over years, as well as bonus notice given to D relating to two life insurance policies.
Held: Bonus notice not to be considered in isolation.
Conduct over years amounted to promissory estoppel.
Herbert v Doyle 2010
X and Y, had verbally agreed on transfers of parking spaces on their adjoining properties.
Number of conditions attached to transfer.
Held: Section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1989 not satisfied. However, parties had come to a sufficiently certain agreement, made orally, creating a proprietary estoppel.
Jennings v Rice 2003
X worked as gardener and odd-job man for Y, until she told him that she would one day leave him the home and that he’d be ‘Alright one day.’
Y died intestate, X claimed either estate (Over £1m) or value of house (Over 400k)
Held: Award of 200k made.
Any more would have been disproportionate to work performed.
REMEDY
Section 116 , Land Registration Act 2002
In registered land, an equity by estoppel and a mere equity have effect from the moment they arise as an interest capable of binding successors in title.
Therefore, it can be protected by a notice against the title.
In addition, if the person claiming the estoppel is in occupation, under it he or she may have an overriding interest under Schedule 3, Paragraph 2, LRA 2002.
EFFECT Estoppel may take effect before determined by court.
