Proprieitary estoppel Flashcards
Crab v Arun (inequitable)
Estoppel prevents a person insisting on rights which would be inequitable
Inwards v Baker
Equity created by estoppel
Ramsden v Dyson (old law)
Common expectation
Unilateral mistake
Willmott v Barber (5 probanda)
- C made a mistake as to their legal rights over D’s land
- C expended money or acted on mistaken belief
- D knew their rights and they were inconsistent with C’s
- D knew of the mistaken belief
- D encouraged C’s expenditure
Taylor’s fashions (3 requirements)
Representation (assurance of right)
Reliance (change of position)
Detriment (unconscionable disadvantage)
Gillet v Holt (unconscionable)
Equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable actions
Cobbe v Yeoman’s row
All the elements must be there before you look at the facts
Crabb v Arun (assurance)
Words in a negotiation close to an actual promise can amount to an assurance
Cobbe v Yeomans row
Estoppel cannot be used to circumvent formalities under s.2 LP(MP)A
Thorner v Major
Statements and conduct clear enough
Walking v Jones
The promise made does not have to be the sole thing they relied on
Pascoe v Turner
PE can be used for a promise for something in the future
Coombes v Smith
To “always to have a roof over your head” not held to be an assurance that creates a mistaken belief
Re Basham
C move prove they changed their position in reliance on the assurance
Gillet v Holt (influence)
Assurance must induce or influence the conduct
Greasly v Cooke
Look at whether a reasonable person would rely on the representation
Coombes v Smith (evidence)
No evidence she left her husband for promise of land
Walking v Jones (inducement)
If the promise is an inducement, reliance is presumed
Inwards v Baker
Expenditure leading to permanent or substantial changes
Gillett v Holt (detriment)
Does not have to be financial
Henry v Henry
Broad enquiry as to whether repudiation of assurance is unconscionable or not
S.116 LRA
An equity by estoppel or a mere equity has effect from the time equity arises as capable of binding successors in title
S.28 LRA
A disposition does not affect the priority of an interest
Crabb v Arun (remedy)
Look at the minimum equity to do justice
Guest v Guest (remedy)
Award a remedy to prevent B suffering a detriment on a promise A no longer wants to make
Gillett v Holt (remedy)
Courts start at the maximum
Suggitt v Suggitt
Courts can give an interest in land as well as money
Davies v Davies
The clearer the expectation the more the detriment and the longer the passage of time, the more wight the expectation holds
Sledmore v Dalby
Must consider if the person needs the money
Desserts v Dodsworth
Remedy cannot be more than C’s expectation
