Property Law Second Term - ESTOPPEL Flashcards
Who made the test more flexible?
Oliver J in Taylor Fashions v LV Trustees
Ratio in Wayling v Jones
‘Sufficient link’ between assurance and detriment. Burden on D to show no reliance.
Taylor v Dickens on unconscionable
Difficult for change of will because free to do so
What are the two possible outcomes of proprietary estoppel?
B can enjoy his right that he has been denied, or the court can award a claim/remedy that is not more than B was assured
What if the land is unregistered for an equity by estoppel?
Estoppels are not a land charge (see s.2(4) LCA) so no need for registration
Greasley v Cooke
Care for partner’s relatives
Wayling v Jones
Homosexual
What is the primary outcome difference between CT and PE?
CT is a claim, but PE is discretionary
What did Law Com No.278 say?
Courts should strictly enforce declarations of trust freely and fairly made
Orgee v Orgee on outcome
B gets no more than he was promised
What did Hopkins argue about the outcome of PE?
Unconscionability was something borne in mind when considering the other requirements, rather than separate
Campbell v Griffin
Elderly landlords
Gillett v Holt on detriment
Lost opportunity - EVEN IF A BENEFIT TO B
From what case does the test come?
Taylor Fashions v LV Trustees
Who suggested unconscionability was something borne in mind when considering the other requirements, rather than separate?
Hopkins
Crabb v Arun DC
Pre-contractual negotiations can suggest assurance
What precedent shows how assurance needs to relate to reasonably identifiable land?
Thorner
what law com report said Courts should strictly enforce declarations of trust freely and fairly made
Law Com No.278
What are the three requirements for an assurance under estoppel
Needs to be clear, must relate to reasonably identifiable land and there needs to be reasonable belief by B
‘Reasonably have been understood as intended to be taken seriously as an assurance which could be relied upon’
Lord Hoffmann, Thorner
In a family context, what is the precedent for an assurance?
General enough, Thorner v Major
Gillett v Holt on unconscionable
Can argue for change of will if repeated often (40 years)
Cobbe and Thorner on unconscionable
Insufficient on its own
Slater v Richardson
A was wholly unaware - if not reasonably expected to know, hard to prove PE
What case stated that an equity is established once the elements of a proprietary estoppel are established
Jennings v Rice
Care for partner’s relatives
Greasley v Cooke
Clarke v Meadus
Used PE to override Goodman v Gallant
Who gave the test for reasonable belief in assurance in Thorner?
Lord Hoffmann
Taylor v Dickens on detriment
Detriment and unconscionability insufficient on its own
Greasley v Cooke ratio
Infer reliance from clear assurance and detriment
Henry v Henry
Test of unconscionability needs to be considered afresh in relation to the position of the third party
Who rejected the idea that the starting point is A is under a duty to B unless it is disproportionate as too unprincipled?
Mee
What three ways does Pawlowski challenge clarke v meadus?
Need s.53(1)(b) for variation, s.53(1)(c) to move beneficial interest (scott in Cobbe on contradict the statute) and Stack involved no express declaration
How does Neuberger argue Scott was wrong in Cobbe on contradicting?
PE is not precluded by s.2 LP(MP)A because PE deals with unconscionability, not an attempt to enforce the contract
What did Mee argue about the outcome of PE?
Rejected the idea that the starting point is A is under a duty to B unless it is disproportionate as too unprincipled
Cobbe v Yeoman’s on Crabb v Arun
Suggests it may have been an exception
What section of what section identifies ‘equity by estoppel’ binds third parties?
S.116 LRA
What did Bright and McFarlane argue about the outcome?
A’s duty should be proportionate to B’s detriment, aimed at protecting B’s relianc
What case shows that a claim will still succeed in PE even if no s.2 LP(MP)A?
Kinane v Mackie-Conteh
What did Lord Scott say in Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row on needing a s.2 LP(MP)A?
‘Equity can surely not contradict the statute’
Dual motive doesn’t remove reliance
Campbell v Griffin
What case used PE to override Goodman v Gallant?
Clarke v Meadus
Wayling v Jones on unconscionable
V bullied D - can’t use PE if acted unconscionably
Who argued that the justification for formalities not applying is because estoppel is a double assurance - a right even without formalities
Dixon
Thorner v Major
Torn up will
What are the requirements for estoppel?
Assurance, reliance, detriment and unconscionable
Homosexual
Wayling v Jones
Jennings v Rice on detriment
Need not relate to land
Jennings v Rice on making out a PE claim
an equity is established once the elements of a proprietary estoppel are established
What did Dixon argue about the outcome of PE?
The justification for formalities not applying is because estoppel is a double assurance - a right even without formalities
Jennings v Rice on outcome
A is not always required to honour the exact promise made
Orgee v Orgee
No reliance when detriment is irrespective of A’s conduct (e.g. paying rent)
Why does Pawlowski suggest Clarke v Meadus was perhaps wrongly decided?
Followed Stack, but Stack involved no express declaration of a trust
In a commercial context, what is the precedent for an assurance?
More specific needed, Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row
Ratio in Campbell v Griffin
Dual motive doesn’t remove reliance
What do you need to do to protect the equity by estoppel ideally in registered land?
Register it as a notice if registered land
Thorner v Major, Lord Hoffmann on reasonable belief in assurance
‘Reasonably have been understood as intended to be taken seriously as an assurance which could be relied upon’
