Propietary Estoppel

Question 1

Description of Proprietary Estoppel?

Answer 1

Layton V Martin: Proprietary Estoppel is concerned with if a property owner can defeat an expectation of interest in said property. (expectation raised by conduct and relied on by claimant)

Question 2

Moriarty

Answer 2

P.E. is not a part of the law of property. P.E. informally creates an interest in land where there is detrimental reliance on assurance.

Question 3

Proprietary Estoppel requirements?

Answer 3

Assurance, Reliance, Detriment.

Question 4

Gillett v Holt (on requirements)

Answer 4

Not subdivided into compartments

Question 5

Thorner V Major (on requirements)

Answer 5

Holistic Approach

Question 6

(Active Assurance) Pascoe v Turner

Answer 6

• Affairs. Man left but told lady not to worry as house and all in it was hers. later changed mind & sued for house.
• HELD: Assurance was enough to rise P.E.

Question 7

(Active Assurance) Gillett v Holt

Answer 7

• Farm manager (plaintiff) received assurance severally but was later removed from will because relationship deteriorated.
• Sued friend who the land was given to
• HELD(in later cases): Oral agreements are enough.

Question 8

What says for you to have an interest in land you must have it in writing- an enforceable contract?

Answer 8

LP (MP) Act 1989, s2

Question 9

(Active Assurance) Yeoman’s row v Cobbe

Answer 9

• Property developer entered into an oral agreement

- HELD: There must be proper assurance (a contract)

Question 10

(Active Assurance) Thorner v Major

Answer 10

• Held: Family relations. No contract necessary.

Question 11

(Passive Assurance) Ramsden v Dyson

Answer 11

• Stranger builds on my land thinking it’s his, I can’t interfere later and take profit

Question 12

Gillett v Holt (irrevocability)

Answer 12

‘Irrevocability’ doesn’t matter. Detrimental reliance creates irrevocability
- Thorner v major backed this up

Question 13

Coombes v Smith (reliance)

Answer 13

Left spouse for D, moved in with him and had a child for him. None of this amounted to reliance to her detriment.

Question 14

Wayling v Jones (reliance)

Answer 14

• C would have left Ds employ if no promise was made as he was paid very little= reliance
• Promise doesn’t need to be the sole cause of claimants conduct

Question 15

Yeoman’s Row v Cobbe (Detriment)

Answer 15

Detriment is a change in position in reliance on assurance

Question 16

Gillett v Holt (Detriment)

Answer 16

• Detriment doesn’t have to be financial. It just needs to be substantial.
• There must be a causal link between assurance & Detriment.
• If the detriment is substantial depends on whether it would be unjust to disregard the assurance

Question 17

(detrimental conduct [financial] ) Pascoe v Turner

Answer 17

• Here, money was spent on the house under the impression that she’d have an interest.
• IMPROVING ANOTHER’S LAND- due to their assurance constitutes a detriment.

Question 18

(detrimental conduct [financial] ) Gillett v Holt

Answer 18

• Gillett suffered financial disadvantage:
• opportunity of staying employed by Mr Holt and not accepting other employment
• Gillett didn’t buy own home
• Holt paid for 1st child to go to private school. Mr & Mrs Gillett had to get loans for 2nd child.
• SUFFERING FINANCIAL DISADVANTAGE- is another detriment.

Question 19

(detrimental conduct [non-finance]) Re Basham

Answer 19

HELD: DETRIMENT- Step-daughter went further than what normal love&affection called for.

Question 20

(detrimental conduct [non-finance]) Grant v Edwards

Answer 20

• (Has to do with constructive trusts but applies to P.E.)
• You can’t say whether C would have done things differently if she didn’t believe she’d have interest in property.
• Once shown that it was a common intention that she’d have an interest, any act to her detriment is sufficent.

Question 21

(detrimental conduct [non-finance]) Jennings v Rice

Answer 21

• Farmer slept in old lady’s house most nights after a burglary
• constituted detriment.

Question 22

(Modern approach to satisfying estoppel) Jennings v Rice

Answer 22

Proportionality between expectation raised and detriment suffered.

Question 23

(Satisfying estoppel) Davies v Davies

Answer 23

Daughter and father. If expectation is out of all proportion, the less C will recieve.

Question 24

Priority

Answer 24

Revise registered land then revise this.