Proprietary estoppel Flashcards
What is proprietary estoppel?
Proprietary estoppel addresses situations where one party has relied on a promise or assurance regarding property rights to their detriment, making it unjust for the promisor to renege on their word.
What are the types of claims under proprietary estoppel?
Promise-based (or imperfect gift), representation-based (or common expectation), and acquiescence-based (or unilateral mistake) claims.
Which case set out early criteria for proprietary estoppel?
Willmott v Barber (1880), emphasising mistake, reliance, knowledge, and encouragement.
How did Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees (1979) influence the assessment of unconscionable behaviour?
Illustrated the courts’ move away from rigid formulas to a more flexible approach in assessing unconscionable behavior.
-Contextualist approach
Oliver J ‘circumstances can be fitted within the confines of some preconceived formula serving as a universal yardstick for every form of unconscionable behaviour’.
(widened the scope)
What are the modern elements of proprietary estoppel?
Representation/Assurance, Reliance, Detriment, and Unconscionability.
Which case emphasises the intertwined nature of assurance, reliance, detriment, and introduces unconscionability as a unifying element?
Gillett v Holt [2001].
(Relied on promise to have the farm - did not go to college =
A defence of proprietory estoppel
Was not allow to go back on promise.
What clarification did Thorner v Major [2009] provide regarding proprietary estoppel?
Clarifies the need for clear assurance intended to be relied upon.
(Worked for free believing to inherent land. But never explicitly said he would inherit)
(Original will said he would inherit but this was retracted)
Court held:
-The claimant was to have a proprietary interest in land.
How do Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] and Ramsden v Dyson (1866) demonstrate reliance and detriment in proprietary estoppel claims?
Both cases demonstrate how reliance on assurances or representations and subsequent detriment form the basis of proprietary estoppel claims.
Crabb v Arun District (1976):
The claimant acted on the council’s informal assurance of access to his land. After selling part of his land based on this assurance, the council blocked the access, leaving the claimant’s remaining land inaccessible. The court found this to be a clear case of reliance and detriment, as the claimant relied on the council’s assurance and suffered a significant detriment when access was denied.
Ramsden v Dyson -
What distinguishes between domestic and commercial contexts in proprietary estoppel, as discussed in Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row [2008]?
Emphasises the necessity of intention to create legal relations and the specific nature of the interest in property, particularly in commercial contexts.
What is required for assurance in proprietary estoppel?
Assurance must be clear enough and context-specific, with considerations varying in domestic versus commercial scenarios.
Is the intention to create legal relations necessary in proprietary estoppel claims?
No, the focus is on whether it would be unconscionable to allow a promise to go unfulfilled rather than the intention to create legal relations as in contract law.
What constitutes reliance and detriment in proprietary estoppel?
Central to a claim, detriment is not limited to financial loss but includes any substantial adverse effect due to reliance on the assurance.
What role does unconscionability play in proprietary estoppel?
Unconscionability is a critical and overarching principle that guides the court’s assessment of whether the elements of proprietary estoppel are present and if the conduct justifies a remedy.
What does Dixon critique about the concept of unconscionability in proprietary estoppel?
Dixon critiques unconscionability as vital yet vaguely understood among judges, suggesting a need for clearer definitions and boundaries within the doctrine.
