Prop estop

Question 1

What are the general principles of Prop estoppel

Answer 1

Can found a course of action.

It prevents someone from insisting on their strict legal rights where it would be inequitable to allow them to do this having regard to the course of dealings.

Doctrine developed as an exception to the formalities required for the creation of interests in land.

Courts use their discretion to find a remedy that suits.

Estoppel generally relates to rights over land.

Question 2

Elements of doctrine
state cases

Answer 2

Thorner v Major

Gilett v Holt

Question 3

Thorner v Major

Answer 3

Held: Lord Walker stated that there are 3 main elements:

A representation/assurance made to the claimant.

Reliance on that assurance/ representation by the claimant.

Detriment to the claimant in consequence of his reliance.

Question 4

Gillet v Holt

Answer 4

Held: Tenancy in modern case law to say that the courts should look at the matter as a whole, the elements are not in water-tight compartments, they can influence each other.

Question 5

Assurance
explain and state case

Answer 5

It does not have to be express, but must be made with the intention that the promise must be relied on- direct assurance representation.
Usually consists of words and deeds, but it is possible that mere acquiescence will suffice.

Thorner v Major

Question 6

Thorner v Major

Answer 6

Facts: Concerned a semi-family dispute involving a farm. The claimant was related to the deceased and had worked on the farm for 30 years on and off without pay.
Clear understanding that he would inherit the deceased’s farm. The deceased left the residuary estate to the claimant but also had legacies in the will who he fell out with and destroyed the will with the intention of making a new will and died intestate. No proof that he fell out with the claimant.

Held: HoL focused on the assurance element.
It was a case of extreme detriment and the quality of the assurance was weak.
Lord Scott: Assurance has to be clear and unequivocal.
Lord Walker: The assurance must be clear enough and what amounts to sufficient clarity will greatly depend on the context.

Conclusion: Satisfied that the deceased wanted to give the farm to the claimant.

Question 7

Reliance explaina nd state cases

Answer 7

Least problematic element: once you have shown that the representation/promise is calculated to influence the judgement of a reasonable man, it is sufficient.

Generally there tends to be a presumption of reliance once an assurance on the part of the legal owner is established.

Gilett v Holt

Thorner v Major

Question 8

Gilett v Holt

Answer 8

Held: Assurances were intended to be relied on.

Question 9

Thorner v Major

Answer 9

the assurances, objectively assessed, were intended to be taken seriously and to be relied upon.

Question 10

Detriment
explain and state case

Answer 10

Most complex issue and fundamental in the determination of remedies.

Will be suffered where an assurance on which reliance is placed is withdrawn.

The fact that detriment has been suffered will make it unconscionable for the legal owner to insist on enforcing their rights.

Usually involves expenditure of money but could be excessive amount of time/something substantial.

Gillett v Holt

Bracken and Byrne

Question 11

Gilet v Holt

Answer 11

Gillett v Holt 2001

Facts: Involved an individual who worked for many years for a farmer with the expectation that he’d inherit it, but they fell out and he was removed from the will.

Held: Walker J made a number of statements:

There must be a sufficient causal link between assurance and detriment.

Detriment must be judged at the moment when the person who gave the assurance is seeking to go back on it.

Detriment is judged on the basis of whether it would be unjust or inequitable to allow the assurance to be disregarded.

It doesn’t need to be a quantifiable financial detriment, as long as it’s something substantial.

Broad inquiry as to whether repudiation of an assurance is or is not unconscionable in all the circumstances

Question 12

When an imperfect gift is made
explain and name case

Answer 12

Usual principle is that equity will not perfect an imperfect gift

Smyth v Halpin

Question 13

Smyth v Halpin

Answer 13

Smyth v Halpin 1997

Facts: Clear expectation that a son would end up with interest in a family home.
Wanted to build a home for himself on the land but father told him that he would ultimately inherit the house. On that basis, he build on an extension.
The parties fell out and the father made a new will.

Issue: Whether the son’s expectation was to be honoured.

Held: Gaigan J, he would get a fee simple interest after his mum died, rather than it going to the sister like the new will stated. Common expectation between the father and son that the property was to be his.
The son succeeded in a proprietary estoppel case which, looks like an instance where equity is perfecting an imperfect gift.

Question 14

Common expectation Explain and name case

Answer 14

The court may intervene where parties deal with each other in such a way that would reasonably cause one party to rely on a shared assumption that he would acquire rights in the other party’s lands.

Haughan v Rutledge

Question 15

Haughan v Rutledge

Answer 15

Facts: The plaintiffs were trustees of an association that was engaged in harness racing and needed a field for this. Agreed in principle with the owner of a field to have it for 1 season on a trial basis and wouldn’t pay, but owner would get benefit of any money received.
When they didnt get the lease at the end, took action.

Held: A number of conditions would have to be satisfied:
Expectation
Detriment
Encouragement- the defendants didnt encourage that they would have interest in the property to justify their expenditure.

Question 16

Unilateral mistake NAme case

Answer 16

Lead to decades of a lack of development as they would insist on the criteria for a case to be established.

Premise: detriment had to be suffered by one party who innocently relied on a mistaken assumption, ie. The person relying should mistakenly believe that they have rights in the land.

O’Callaghan v Ballincollig Holdings 1993

There is no estoppel where the stranger knows that they have no rights over the land.

Question 17

Unconscionability state case and explain

Answer 17

Gillett v Holt 2001

Held: Robert Walker J:
Reiterated that assurance, reliance and detriment are essential, but the courts must look at the matter in the round.
Sometimes assurance or reliance may be weak, don’t focus on them as separate hurdles, the case shouldn’t fail

Test: Requirement of detriment must be approached as part of a broad inquiry as to whether repudiation of an assurance is or is not unconscionable in all the circumstances

Note: Traditional elements significant but more of an approach to asking about unconscionability.

Question 18

Highlight the importance of context

Answer 18

Farm disputes- Uncon plays a major role

Employment contract- no conclusion of contract reasonably expected

Question 19

Significance of context state case and explane

Answer 19

Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management 2008

Facts: The claimant was an experienced property developer, he entered into an oral agreement with the defendant for the development of an apartment block that had potential.
Got planning permission on the understanding that contract was going to be fulfilled.
Incurred a lot of expense and the owner tried to renegotiate the deal and the property developer sued.

Held: Claim succeeded in HC and CoA but in the HoL the remedy was a payment of the planning permission and no specific performance was awarded.
Unanimously agreed that unconscionability could not be the driving principle in a case where parties are assumed to enter into a contract.

Lord Walker: It is not enough ‘to hope, or even to have a confident expectation, that the person who has given assurances will eventually do the proper thing’. Hope is not enough.
The courts should be slow to introduce uncertainty to commercial transactions.

Lord Scott: Unconscionability may lead to a remedy but effectively, proprietary estoppel claims could only succeed if assurance, reliance and detriment are present.
Assuming that a case would succeed merely on the basis of unconscionability would be a recipe for confusion.

Note: Key factor was the context- no change in the Gillet approach.
The courts have Have been much more rigorous on assuring that assurance reliance and detriment are satisfied.

Question 20

Who rejected Lord Scott Limitation in Cobbe

Answer 20

McFarlane and RObinson 2009

Question 21

What are the types of remedy

Answer 21

Expectation based- what did the plaintiff expect

Reliance based– What did they lose in reliance to the assurance

Question 22

What model tends to be followed in England and ireland

Answer 22

Expectation model

Question 23

What are the drawbacks to the expectation model

Answer 23

May be uncertain in nature.

May not be fairly derived from the assurance.

May be out of all proportion to the detriment suffered.

Question 24

Where is reliance model supported

Answer 24

Australia

Question 25

Drawback of reliance way

Answer 25

Can be diffoicult to quantify detriment

Question 26

Cases on sope of remedy

Answer 26

Jenenings v Rice

Guest v Guest

Question 27

Jennings v Rice

Answer 27

Facts: Concerned a gardener who was working for an elderly lady on a part-time basis and ultimately was working full time for her care and had not been paid.
The lady said that her house would be his and used the phrase that she would ’see him right’, she didnt have family and made it clear that she would leave everything to him.
Didn’t make a will and died intestate.

Held: Awarded sum of 200k pounds but the house was worth over 400k and the whole estate was worth 1.2 million.
CoA: Had to decide whether to increase the award or not.
Considered:
Expectation- he believed that he was going to get the whole estate.
Detriment- this was difficult to quantify.

Walker J:
Equity arises not from expectations alone but from combination of expectations, detrimental reliance and unconscionableness.
If the claimants expectation is extravagant or out of all proportion to the detriment suffered, the courts have to find a more limited way of satisfying the claim.
NB: The essence of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel is to do what is necessary to avoid an unconscionable result, and a disproportionate remedy cannot be the right way of going about that.

Conclusion: Received the initial 200k.

Question 28

Guest v Guest

Answer 28

Facts: The son was the eldest child of the defendant and worked on the farm at a low rate. Had been promised that he would inherit a substantial part of the farm- relationship between parents and eldest son deteriorated and he was cut out of the will.

Held:
HC: Came up with a remedy that was going to lead to the farm being sold, he would get:
50% of the farm.
40% of the land.

SC: Came up with a different approach, the defendant had the choice to either put the farm into a trust or compensate him straight away with a reduction because he was going to receive the money immediately.

Lord Briggs:
It is not about the fulfilling of expectations/ compensating for detriment, this is about preventing unconscionable conduct.
Once, you have a claim, fulfilling the promise is merely a starting point.
There may be reasons to reduce the expectation, ie. Ensuring fairness to 3rd partie

Question 29

Key findings in guest v Guest

Answer 29

Unconscionability was the driving factor when it came to the formulation of the remedy.
If the aim of the doctrine is to remedy unconscionability, some reference to whether the proposed remedy is out of proportion to the detriment.
Makes clear that the burden of establishing that enforcement of a promise is out of all proportion to the detriment lies on the promisor
Clarified that the approach taken by Robert Walker in Jennings as interpreted in the Suggitt case will be followed.
The courts will only intervene if the expectation is out of proportion to the detriment suffered.

Question 30

Proprietary estoppel ad prmissory
State cases

Answer 30

Promissory cant found a claim

Proprietary can

Thorner
Promissory- based on relationship

Proprietary- based on property

Doctrines not same

Cobbe- proprietary is subspecieid of promissert

Question 31

Reactions to Lord Scott

Answer 31

Lord walker would have some difficulty with Lord Scott’s categorisation.

Etheron The characterisation that Lord Scott came up with would be viewed by some as surprising, no reason to say what he said.

Question 32

Bracken v Byrne

Answer 32

Facts: Concerned a sister who was promised a plot of land.

Held: The only detriment was the making of a planning application and talks with the builder, but this wasn’t sufficient to constitute detriment.
Clarke J made it clear that the requirement of sufficient detriment is key.

Question 33

Coyle v Finnegan

Answer 33

Facts: The plaintiff had helped on deceased farm for 9 years and had fell out 5 years before the deceased died. Although he had promised that the plaintiff would inherit the farm, changed the will and left plaintiff nothing. Deceased found a replacement and left them the farm.

Held:
Assurance: Express representation by the deceased to the plaintiff that the deceased would leave him the farm.
Reliance: Worked on the farm for almost nothing.
Detriment: Clearly suffered a detriment in consequence of his reasonable reliance.
Looking at the facts, it could be unconscionable if the plaintiff was not paid for the services that he had provided.
It would not be appropriate to give the plaintiff the farm in the circumstances, but awarded him a sum that was designed to compensate the work he had done.
Remedy was calibrated on the basis of unconscionability: it was unconscionable for the defendant to keep the farm and the plaintiff get nothing, but it was also unconscionable for the new worker to not receive anything and the plaintiff to get the farm.