Proprietary Estoppel Flashcards
What is proprietary estoppel?
- If A makes a promise to B with regards to land which they later go back on and B detrimentally relied on the promise, B will have a remedy to stop A
What are the four elements of proprietary estoppel?
Assurance, Reliance, Detriment and Unconsionability
What is the expectation under Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row?
In a domestic and family context, the expectation is a proprietary one, only where it is commerical will this differ
What case established that the subject matter of proprietary estoppel must be certain?
Thorner v Major
Assurance must be clear and related to an identifiable property (must be considered in the retrospective context including character and relationship)
Where does the burden of proof lay with showing a reliance?
Greasley v Cooke
Burden of proof is not on the person showing proprietary estoppel but is on the defendant to show the person did not rely on their assurances
Wayling v Jones
The promise does not need to be the sole inducement for the parties conduct
What does the case law tell us about detriment?
Gillet v Holt
Detriment need not consist of expenditure or financial detriment, so long as it is something substantial. Part of a broad inquirt as to whether repudation of an assurance is unconscionable
Winter v Winter
* Where a claimant has made a life-changing choice and worked over many years under a reliance, the court will be prepared to treat the loss of opportunity to lead a different life as itself detrimental without proving what they would have done instead
* However if they get financial benefits this must be weighed against the loss of the possibility of other options
How important is unconscionability in deciding whether proprietary estoppel is made out?
- Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row: Should be used an objective value judgement
- Thorner v Major: Discusson of how estoppel would be strange where representations are conditional
- Guest v Guest: Lord Briggs said the conceptual basis for proprietary estoppel is the unconscionability caused and so the remedy must be focused on remedying this
What is the approach for determining relief / remedy since Guest v Guest?
Lord Briggs
Remedy should not be out of proportion to the detriment suffered without good reason. You must start with the expectation and move along the spectrum. The three stage test is:
- Is going back on the promise unconscionable? If so, the simplest remedy is to enforce the promise
- If enforcement or monetary equivalent is out of proportion, the court can limit the remedy (does not need to be precise to the detriment)
- Would a particular remedy do justice, considering whether the promisor would be acting unconscionably if they were to confer the proposed benefit
What is the effect on third parties in proprietary estoppel?
s116 Land Registration Act 2002
An equity by estoppel has the effect being an interest capable of binding successors in title, subject to the rules of priority of dispositions
What is the orthodox view of relief and third parties?
ORTHODOX- because estoppel is made out this can be binding upon the third party subject to the rules on priority
What is McFarlane’s view on relief and third parties that has been extended by Guest v Guest?
- First determine what remedy the court would grant. Only if the remedy is a property right can we decide whether this would be binding on a third party
- Guest v Guest held if land has been sold or given to a third party, this is good reason to grant. a personal rather than property right
- S116 only allows equity by estoppel for property rights, therefore the claimant would have no claim against the third party, only the defendant
