Property Law Second Term - ESTOPPEL

Question 1

Who made the test more flexible?

Answer 1

Oliver J in Taylor Fashions v LV Trustees

Question 1

Ratio in Wayling v Jones

Answer 1

‘Sufficient link’ between assurance and detriment. Burden on D to show no reliance.

Question 1

Taylor v Dickens on unconscionable

Answer 1

Difficult for change of will because free to do so

Question 1

What are the two possible outcomes of proprietary estoppel?

Answer 1

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

Question 1

What if the land is unregistered for an equity by estoppel?

Answer 1

Estoppels are not a land charge (see s.2(4) LCA) so no need for registration

Question 2

Greasley v Cooke

Answer 2

Care for partner’s relatives

Question 2

Wayling v Jones

Answer 2

Homosexual

Question 2

What is the primary outcome difference between CT and PE?

Answer 2

CT is a claim, but PE is discretionary

Question 3

What did Law Com No.278 say?

Answer 3

Courts should strictly enforce declarations of trust freely and fairly made

Question 4

Orgee v Orgee on outcome

Answer 4

B gets no more than he was promised

Question 5

What did Hopkins argue about the outcome of PE?

Answer 5

Unconscionability was something borne in mind when considering the other requirements, rather than separate

Question 6

Campbell v Griffin

Answer 6

Elderly landlords

Question 8

Gillett v Holt on detriment

Answer 8

Lost opportunity - EVEN IF A BENEFIT TO B

Question 10

From what case does the test come?

Answer 10

Taylor Fashions v LV Trustees

Question 10

Who suggested unconscionability was something borne in mind when considering the other requirements, rather than separate?

Answer 10

Hopkins

Question 11

Crabb v Arun DC

Answer 11

Pre-contractual negotiations can suggest assurance

Question 12

What precedent shows how assurance needs to relate to reasonably identifiable land?

Answer 12

Thorner

Question 12

what law com report said Courts should strictly enforce declarations of trust freely and fairly made

Answer 12

Law Com No.278

Question 13

What are the three requirements for an assurance under estoppel

Answer 13

Needs to be clear, must relate to reasonably identifiable land and there needs to be reasonable belief by B

Question 14

‘Reasonably have been understood as intended to be taken seriously as an assurance which could be relied upon’

Answer 14

Lord Hoffmann, Thorner

Question 16

In a family context, what is the precedent for an assurance?

Answer 16

General enough, Thorner v Major

Question 16

Gillett v Holt on unconscionable

Answer 16

Can argue for change of will if repeated often (40 years)

Question 17

Cobbe and Thorner on unconscionable

Answer 17

Insufficient on its own

Question 18

Slater v Richardson

Answer 18

A was wholly unaware - if not reasonably expected to know, hard to prove PE

Question 19

What case stated that an equity is established once the elements of a proprietary estoppel are established

Answer 19

Jennings v Rice

Question 20

Care for partner’s relatives

Answer 20

Greasley v Cooke

Question 21

Clarke v Meadus

Answer 21

Used PE to override Goodman v Gallant

Question 22

Who gave the test for reasonable belief in assurance in Thorner?

Answer 22

Lord Hoffmann

Question 24

Taylor v Dickens on detriment

Answer 24

Detriment and unconscionability insufficient on its own

Question 26

Greasley v Cooke ratio

Answer 26

Infer reliance from clear assurance and detriment

Question 28

Henry v Henry

Answer 28

Test of unconscionability needs to be considered afresh in relation to the position of the third party

Question 30

Who rejected the idea that the starting point is A is under a duty to B unless it is disproportionate as too unprincipled?

Answer 30

Mee

Question 30

What three ways does Pawlowski challenge clarke v meadus?

Answer 30

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

Question 31

How does Neuberger argue Scott was wrong in Cobbe on contradicting?

Answer 31

PE is not precluded by s.2 LP(MP)A because PE deals with unconscionability, not an attempt to enforce the contract

Question 32

What did Mee argue about the outcome of PE?

Answer 32

Rejected the idea that the starting point is A is under a duty to B unless it is disproportionate as too unprincipled

Question 34

Cobbe v Yeoman’s on Crabb v Arun

Answer 34

Suggests it may have been an exception

Question 35

What section of what section identifies ‘equity by estoppel’ binds third parties?

Answer 35

S.116 LRA

Question 35

What did Bright and McFarlane argue about the outcome?

Answer 35

A’s duty should be proportionate to B’s detriment, aimed at protecting B’s relianc

Question 36

What case shows that a claim will still succeed in PE even if no s.2 LP(MP)A?

Answer 36

Kinane v Mackie-Conteh

Question 38

What did Lord Scott say in Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row on needing a s.2 LP(MP)A?

Answer 38

‘Equity can surely not contradict the statute’

Question 39

Dual motive doesn’t remove reliance

Answer 39

Campbell v Griffin

Question 40

What case used PE to override Goodman v Gallant?

Answer 40

Clarke v Meadus

Question 41

Wayling v Jones on unconscionable

Answer 41

V bullied D - can’t use PE if acted unconscionably

Question 43

Who argued that the justification for formalities not applying is because estoppel is a double assurance - a right even without formalities

Answer 43

Dixon

Question 44

Thorner v Major

Answer 44

Torn up will

Question 45

What are the requirements for estoppel?

Answer 45

Assurance, reliance, detriment and unconscionable

Question 46

Homosexual

Answer 46

Wayling v Jones

Question 47

Jennings v Rice on detriment

Answer 47

Need not relate to land

Question 48

Jennings v Rice on making out a PE claim

Answer 48

an equity is established once the elements of a proprietary estoppel are established

Question 49

What did Dixon argue about the outcome of PE?

Answer 49

The justification for formalities not applying is because estoppel is a double assurance - a right even without formalities

Question 51

Jennings v Rice on outcome

Answer 51

A is not always required to honour the exact promise made

Question 52

Orgee v Orgee

Answer 52

No reliance when detriment is irrespective of A’s conduct (e.g. paying rent)

Question 53

Why does Pawlowski suggest Clarke v Meadus was perhaps wrongly decided?

Answer 53

Followed Stack, but Stack involved no express declaration of a trust

Question 54

In a commercial context, what is the precedent for an assurance?

Answer 54

More specific needed, Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row

Question 55

Ratio in Campbell v Griffin

Answer 55

Dual motive doesn’t remove reliance

Question 56

What do you need to do to protect the equity by estoppel ideally in registered land?

Answer 56

Register it as a notice if registered land

Question 57

Thorner v Major, Lord Hoffmann on reasonable belief in assurance

Answer 57

‘Reasonably have been understood as intended to be taken seriously as an assurance which could be relied upon’