Proprietary Estoppel Flashcards
What must the claimant do to acquire interest in land?
They must establish that proprietary estoppel has arisen. which gives rise to equity and allows them to go to court and claim a ready due to them suffering unconscionable behaviour at the hands of the legal owner.
What is satisfying the equity?
This meaning going to court and obtaining the remedy. The court has the discretion to awarding any remedy. e.g. an interest in the land or not at all
What case states the three requirements of Proprietary estoppel?
Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees [1892]
- Representation
- Reliance
- Detriment
What are the facts in Inward v Baker [1965]? (Positive Assurance of Rights)
- Mr Baker’a son wanted to build himself a house - his father suggest for the house to be build on his land for the house can be bigger
- The son relied on the suggestion and send money to build the house
- The father died and left the house to Inward who sough to claim possession
- The son said he was estopped from doing so
- The Court of Appeal granted the son with equitable rights to the property for life
What is representation?
The legal owner of the property must have made or acted in a way that led the claimant to believe they had or will have interest in the land. This could be over (Gillett v Hold) repeated representation.
Must the representation be more than mere statement of intention?
Yes. And it must be clear
What is reliance?
The claimant must have placed reliance on the representation made. They must have acted on the strength of the representation.
What is detriment?
Detriment is not a “narrow or technical concept” (Gillet v Holt) it means some monetary loss to burden suffered by the claimant.
Does detriment need to be of financial loss?
No. The court acknowledge that the concept of detriment is “incapable of reduction to ponds and pence” (Habberfield v Habberfield [2019])
What else amounts to detriment?
It could include circumstances sugar as the claimant acting as a care giver (Greasley v Cooke) or giving up something that benefits them.
What are the facts in Southwell v Blackburn [2014]?
- Mr Southwell and Mrs Blackburn begin living together in 2002 in the property purchased by Mr Southwell in his name
- In 2012 the relationship broke down and Mrs Blackburn stated her ex was holding the property for them in equal shares
- The Court argued that she had an equity by means of proprietary estoppel
- She was awarded financially
What is unconscionablility?
Lord Walker described it as “an objective value judgment on behaviour”
The case of Cobbe v Yeoman Row Management [2008] stated “That unconscionable behaviour that is enough to shock the conscience of the Courts’
Why is the timing of the equity important?
Why is the timing of the equity important? Mortgage Company v Others [2019]
- Mr Mollan said to Mr Zaman to transfer his home to him until he repaid his debt - he agreed - and once the debt was repaid the house will be transferred back
- The house was transferred in 2003 BUT Mr Zaman continued to live in the property
- Eventually the debt was repaid in 2006 and Mr Zaman made suggestions for the house to be transferred back to him
- Mr Mallon said he would but he made no further actions
- Shortly after the transfer he took a mortgage on the property and he defaulted payments on it - and he was made bankrupt - the Mortgage lender sought possession of the property
- The couple argued that equity had arisen when Mr Mallon stated he would transfer the property back (before July 2003)
- The mortgage lender argued that equity had arisen when he was meant to transfer the property nut failed to do so
- The Court agreed with the mortgage lender - that all the elements of representation was present but the unconscionability only became apparent when the property was not transferred.
What is a remedy?
The remedy will take affect not from the day the element of estoppel was established but from the day the Court awards the remedy. Once a constructive trust has been established the claimant is entitled an equitable interest in the property.
What is the facts in the case of Cobbe v Yeoman Row Management [2008]?
Mortgage Company v Others [2019]
- Mr Mollan said to Mr Zaman to transfer his home to him until he repaid his debt - he agreed - and once the debt was repaid the house will be transferred back
- The house was transferred in 2003 BUT Mr Zaman continued to live in the property
- Eventually the debt was repaid in 2006 and Mr Zaman made suggestions for the house to be transferred back to him
- Mr Mallon said he would but he made no further actions
- Shortly after the transfer he took a mortgage on the property and he defaulted payments on it - and he was made bankrupt - the Mortgage lender sought possession of the property
- The couple argued that equity had arisen when Mr Mallon stated he would transfer the property back (before July 2003)
- The mortgage lender argued that equity had arisen when he was meant to transfer the property nut failed to do so
- The Court agreed with the mortgage lender - that all the elements of representation was present but the unconscionability only became apparent when the property was not transferred.
