Proprietary Estoppel

Question 1

Central London Property Trust v High Trees House

Answer 1

C landlord, D tenant. C leased block of flats for 99 years at a rent of £2,500 p/y. C agreed to accept £1,250 over the war. when war ended asked for the rent to go back plus the accumulated over 5 years. Could not claim back but could increase going forward.

Question 2

Lord Cawdor v Lewis

Answer 2

Lewis land agent owned a field, watched LC spend money on the field. “It is a proper subject for equitable interference when a party stands by and allows another to spend money without notifying them of their title”

Question 3

Jackson v Cator

Answer 3

30 year lease of adjoining fields, landlord right to hold timber. Wanted landscape of ornamental trees, landlord chopped them down. Court granted an injunction.

Question 4

Ramsden v Dyson

Answer 4

The hope of an extended term does not amount to a claim any court of equity can enforce. Lord Kingsdown

Question 5

Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria

Answer 5

Lord Oliver, proprietary estoppel should be directed at ascertaining circumstances where it would be unconscionable to deny a tenant to act in reliance

Question 6

s4 Statute of Frauds 1677

Answer 6

1. “sales of land … note thereof shall be in writeing and signed by the partie to be charged therewith or some other person therunto by him lawfully authorised”.
2. Court of Equity would grant specific performance if one or both had developed part performance

Question 7

s40 LPA 1925

Answer 7

Repealed by LP(MP)A 1989. 40(1) repeated s4, 40(2) applies to contracts whether made before or after the enactment of this Act and does not affect the law relating to part performance. (Codifies part performance)

Question 8

Steadman v Steadman

Answer 8

Lord Reed: if one party to an agreement stands by and lets the other incur expense on the faith of an agreement being valid he may not turn around and make it unenforceable. Courts will not allow statute to be used as an instrument of fraud.

Question 9

Law Commission working paper no 92

Answer 9

Feared 40(1) was becoming a ‘dead letter’ doctrine of part performance and became so broad it allowed anyone in any circumstances to override. (MORE TO LEARN)

Question 10

s2 LP(MP)A 1989 s2(8)

Answer 10

s40 of the LPA shall cease to have effect.

Question 11

Yaxley v Gotts

Answer 11

Won the case granting a 99 year lease, appeal refused as could also argue a constructive trust had arisen under s2(5) and a statute cannot be used as an instrument of fraud. LC reports s2 was intended to allow PE to apply.

Question 12

Whittaker

Answer 12

Reaffirmed Yaxley and stated s2 does not exclude PE

Question 13

Robert Walker LJ in the round

Answer 13

“The doctrine of PE cannot be treated as subdivided into three or four watertight compartments. In the end the court must look at the matter in the round.”

Question 14

Four elements

Answer 14

Assurance, Reliance, Detriment, Unconscionability

Question 15

Thorner v Major

Answer 15

“Thats for my death duties” often take out life insurance policies to raise money for inheritance tax, same as saying he would inherit the farm. David refused a job opportunity. Assurance can be express or inferred.

Question 16

Dann v Spurrier

Answer 16

“The circumstances of looking on is in many cases as strong as using terms of encouragement”

Question 17

Hoyl Group Ltd v Cromer Town Council

Answer 17

Assurance was made via conduct. As a council approved a plan involving a right of way this meant they had given an assurance. Any sort of property right is sufficient.

Question 18

Ramsden v Dyson

Answer 18

A verbal agreement “or what amounts to the same thing, an expectation created or encouraged”

Question 19

Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria

Answer 19

“PE looks at what the defendant knowingly or unknowingly, has allowed or encouraged the claimant to assume”

Question 20

Gillett v Holt

Answer 20

The relevant assurance may be something which is not an express promise but it “tantamount to a promise”

Question 21

Uglow v Uglow

Answer 21

Inquiry in PE cases can consider whether the defendant “by his conduct, created the claimants expectation”

Question 22

Wayling v Jones

Answer 22

D said to C “you’ll get everything after I’m gone”

Question 23

Gillett v Holt

Answer 23

Repeated specific statements, C asked for something in writing, D said “thats not necessary its all going to be yours anyway”

Question 24

Jennings v Rice

Answer 24

Carer case where C looked after D, D repeatedly said “this will all be yours one day”. Robert LJ “If the claimants expectations are uncertain, extravagant or out of all proportion equity can be satisfied in another and generally more limited way”

Question 25

Campbell v Griffin

Answer 25

D’s frequently said to C, “whatever happens you’ll have a home for life”. Being a decent human being should not destroy his claim for PE and low cost accommodation was nowhere near enough to outweigh the detriment

Question 26

Dixon assurance relating to..

Answer 26

The assurance must relate to some ‘reasonably identifiable’ property

Question 27

Cobbe

Answer 27

Assurance granted was never that he would get an interest in the property. Lord Walker, in a commercial context the C typically has access to legal advice. Lord Scott suggests the assurance has to be specific such as Taylor Fashions. Was not unconscionable as Cobbe knew there were formalities to be binding.

Question 28

Southwell v Blackburn

Answer 28

Free accommodation for 10 years did not outweigh the benefit of a secure tenancy

Question 29

Dixon unconscionability

Answer 29

“It is unconscionability that frees the court from the strictures of the formality requirements imposed by statute, even if they have relied to their detriment, no PE without unconscionability”

Question 30

Double Assurance

Answer 30

For there to be PE where there would otherwise be formalities, D has to assure of a right and assure they don’t need to rely on formality

Question 31

Murphy v Burrows

Answer 31

Claim for PE failed due to lack of repeated assurances

Question 32

Ghazaani v Rowshan

Answer 32

Orally agreed on a swap and transfer, after transferring the receiving party failed their half, won PE as they believed their agreement was binding and unaware of formality requirements.

Question 33

Matchmove v Dowding

Answer 33

Plot and meadow. CoA 1. there was an oral agreement intended to be binding, 2. Complete to all its essential terms of land/price, technicality not done but it was regarded as binding

Question 34

Editorial (M Dixon) Developments in estoppel and trusts of land

Answer 34

We should recognise estoppel in failed contract cases which does not avoid statute but relieves unconscionability. Where PE succeeds ‘the failed contract is not enforced, indirectly or otherwise it remains a failed contract but there is an independent equity in estoppel.

Question 35

Wayling v Jones

Answer 35

CoA looked only for a ‘sufficient link’ between the assurance and detriment, evidence would be to throw burden of proof onto the claimant to show no reliance. There will be no reliance only when its shown C would have incurred detriment irrespective of conduct.

Question 36

Murphy v Rayner

Answer 36

Undue influence from the claimant therefore no unconscionability

Question 37

Lord Cawdor v Lewis Remedy

Answer 37

Estoppel had been proven, determine at another hearing whether it would be perpetual injunction, long lease or compensation. Only one was proprietary

Question 38

Ramsden v Dyson Remedy

Answer 38

C was promised a lease, lost in the HoL as nobody has ever made him any assurance of that kind of lease expressly or by conduct. Was not necessary to go into what award as he lost

Question 39

Plimmer v Wellington Corp

Answer 39

If property rights of a third party are affected they are entitled to compensation, council concluded a court must look at the circumstances of each case to assess how estoppel should be classified.

Question 40

Crabb v Arun District Council

Answer 40

The court seeks to grant as a remedy, ‘the minimum equity to do justice’ to the plaintiff

Question 41

Suggitt v Suggitt

Answer 41

Brother/Sister farm house. On appeal counsel quoted Jennings stating he should only be awarded the equivalent to lost wages, this was rejected. Only when it is out of all proportion which this wasn’t.

Question 42

Davies v Davies

Answer 42

LJ Lewison accepted there is a ‘sliding scale’ where the clearer the expectation, greater the detriment, longer the passage of time the expectation was reasonably held, the greater the weight given to the expectation.

Question 43

Pascoe v Turner

Answer 43

Two options for remedy, life interest or grant of the freehold. “Equity cannot be satisfied without granting security of tenure, quiet enjoyment and freedom of action to repairs and improvement without interference”

Question 44

J Willis & Son v Willis

Answer 44

Conduct by the claimant is relevant to establishing the remedy. Claimants had knowingly given false evidence to the court, even disregarding this they could have found PE but their conduct had been so bad they were denied any remedy at all.

Question 45

Cases where the court had awarded the promised or assured right (4)

Answer 45

Pascoe v Turner
Thorner v Major
Joyse v Epsom and Ewell Borough Council
Moore v Moore

Question 46

Cases where the court awarded a right less than promised (2)

Answer 46

Halifax v Curry Popeck - promised a legal charge, granted an equitable one
Seward v Seward - assurance was ownership of a large property, granted an equitable ownership in a smaller property

Question 47

Court awarded a personal remedy - financial compensation (3)

Answer 47

Campbell v Griffin
Jennings v Rice
Davies v Davies

Question 48

Plimmer v Wellington Corp uncrystallised equity

Answer 48

Until the court has decided on a remedy, the claimant has an equity proprietary right

Question 49

Snell, Principles of Equity

Answer 49

The first time the doctrine was named

Question 50

ER Ives Investment v High

Answer 50

First time PE was used. Land Charges Act dispute

Question 51

Lloyds Bank v Carrick

Answer 51

LJ Morrett gave the leading judgment, held PE failed “In the circumstances it is unnecessary to consider whether interest in land is capable of binding successors in title”

Question 52

Law Commission “Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century”

Answer 52

Proprietary status of an equity arising by estoppel should be confirmed by a new Act in relation to registered land. s116 LRA

Question 53

Stack v Dowden

Answer 53

PE typically consists of asserting an equitable claim against the conscience of the true owner. It has to be satisfied by the minimum equity to do justice (Crabb). CT is identifying the true owner and size of their interest.

Question 54

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington

Answer 54

Under a CT, the court function is merely to declare such trust has arisen in the past, even if it may lead to unfair circumstances to third patted who have since received the property. In PE claims with third parties can be taken into account when deciding what remedy to award.

Question 55

Role of s2 LP(MP)A 1989. Matchmove v Dowding

Answer 55

Failed contract case, C’s argued both PE and CT. Judge held they should get what they promised, CoA said they were clearly deserving a CT within s2(5) so PE did not need to be considered.