Proprietary Estoppel

Question 1

proprietary estoppel

Answer 1

protects a person who has done acts in reliance on an expectation that they will receive an interest in the landowner’s land or an estate in fee simple

Question 2

requirements for estoppel

Answer 2

• a commitment or promise by X to Y which X intends Y to rely on, and where Y’s actual reliance to his detriment is reasonable in the circumstances

Question 3

test for estoppel

Answer 3

whether a promise by X can reasonably be understood as a commitment to Y

Question 4

categories of situations which give rise to claims for PE

Answer 4

• imperfect gift
• common intention
• unilateral mistake

Question 5

does the property have to be certain?

Answer 5

yes, it does

Question 6

how clear and unequivocal the representation have to b?

Answer 6

depends on the context

Question 7

between what does the causal link need to be?

Answer 7

detriment and assurance

Question 8

what’s the main feature of the remedy?

Answer 8

it’s inherently flexible

Question 9

when does the estoppel arise?

Answer 9

only when the court give a proprietary remedy

Question 10

when does equity arise?

Answer 10

at the time the acts of detriment are done

Question 11

Crabb v Arun DC 1975

Answer 11

f: C was assured that local council would build a right of way to his land with 2 access points, to confirm their intentions, the council built a fence with a gap for the assured right of way, the claimant relied on this assurance to sell of part of his land, leaving his own landlocked
j: the council was estopped and the promise could be enforced
p: three questions for proprietary estoppel established

Question 12

Dillwyn v Llewelyn 1862

Answer 12

f: a father gave his son an estate and signed a memorandum presenting it to him for the purpose of building a house, it was not a deed
j: the son entitled to call for a legal conveyance
p: imperfect gift case

Question 13

Ramsden v Dyson 1866

Answer 13

f: -
j: laid down a rule that if a stranger builds on my land and I do nothing and leave him to go on, equity will intervene and won’t let me take the profit
p: acquiescence rule

Question 14

Taylor Fashions and Liverpool Victoria Trustees 1982

Answer 14

f: two companies had made improvements to their buildings then wanted to renew their lease but their landlord found out that they do not have to do this anymore, they argued that because of lack of unconscionability this cannot be PE
j: it could, in the judgment need to expand the artificial confines expressed, yet Taylor lost as the improvements were not to his detriment and the landlord (as opposed to the Olds) did not encourage them to do anything
p: if the conditions satisfied, there is PE

Question 15

Gillet v Holt 2001

Answer 15

f: G worked for H since 1956, gave up school and lived at his farm because H asked him to, then G married and he and H became sorta surrogate fam to each other, repeated assurances that G will inherit all his businesses, then they have an argument and he gives his estate to someone else
j: Gillet won, it is all about conscionability, plus you can actually claim PE in terms of will and future property
p: PE in terms of future property

Question 16

Yeoman’s Row v Cobbe 2008

Answer 16

f: C a businessman who claimed three PEs against Y, they had an agreement that C is going to assist Y and get a planning permission to turn some land into houses, after getting the permission they were supposed to transfer the land to Cobbe
j: deal not enforceable because this was an agreement in principle, it hadn’t contained all terms and C had no expectations of obtaining a certain property right, they were supposed to negotiate the rest after getting a PP
p: unsuccessful PE claim

Question 17

Thorner v Major 2009

Answer 17

f: M worked for T for 30 yrs 14h a day unpaid, in 1990 T gave him an insurance policy notice about death duties, T carried on working because he thought he would inherit, then T died with no will
j: M got the estate, plus test for assurance - whether the meaning A conveyed would reasonably have been understood as intended to be taken seriously as an assurance which could be relied upon
p: power of PE

Question 18

Jennings v Rice 2003

Answer 18

f: X worked for nearly 30 yrs for Y, Y stopped paying bc she said he’d get her estate, then died intestate
j: X got £200,000 as a larger sum would’ve been out of proportions to what he might’ve charged for the services
p: calculating remedies in PE

Question 19

Sledmore v Dalby 1996

Answer 19

f -
j - Dalby’s remedy exhausted as he lived rent-free for 18 yrs, so even though successful PE claim, no remedy
p: remedy in PE inherently flexible

Question 20

Southern v Blackburn 2014

Answer 20

f: B persuaded S to move to Birmingham by saying to her that she’d always have a home, and then tried to evict her
j: even though representation not property-specific, PE still found
p: PE in couple cases

Question 21

Inward v Baker 1956

Answer 21

f: elderly man encouraged son to build a bungalow on his land, telling him that once built, the bungalow will be available for him to use for as long as he wished, son lived there for 30 yrs, father died, half-brothers sought possession
j: classic PE case, successful
p: classic PE

Question 22

Pascoe v Turner 1979

Answer 22

f: a couple in love, T moved in with P and lived as married, T moved into another house bought by P (blindfold and said everything is yours), then P left for another woman but let T stay, later tried to evict her
j: clear representation present, detriment from T only £700 but she didn’t have much money in general, in context detriment sufficient
p: assessing detriment in PE

Question 23

Coombes v Smith 1986

Answer 23

j: an affair, S told C that he wanted them to live together, he bought a house, she got pregnant, lost her job, left husband and moved in, she was supposed to always have a roof over her head, C improved the house, S didn’t put her on deed despite 2 requests, relationship ended
p: the assurance not certain enough, even if it had been, the detriment wouldn’t have been enough, a poor and sexist judgment