Proprietary Estoppel

Question 1

Taylor’s Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees

Answer 1

Requirements for proprietary estoppel claims

1) Assurance by owner
2) Reliance by cliamant
3) Detriment to claimant
4) Unconscionable to renege on promise

Question 2

Crabb v Arun

Answer 2

Council promised he would have a right of way - in reliance sold part of land (detriment)
Awarded equitable easement
Selling own land is detrimental reliance

Question 3

Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management

Answer 3

Proprietary estoppel requires clarity as to what property interest the owner is to be estopped from denying
Conscience of court must be shocked (obiter)
Commercial parties should have known better than to rely on agreement subject to contract

Question 4

Gillett v Holt

Answer 4

Assurance need not expressly include irrevocability
Unconscionability plays a unifying role between assurance, reliance and detriment
Promise to leave property in will could form basis of estoppel
Working for landowner and not furthering career elsewhere is detrimental reliance

Question 5

Thorner v Major

Answer 5

Assurance has to be ‘clear enough’ - lower threshold for family/informal situations

Question 6

AG of Hong Kong v Humphrey’s Estate

Answer 6

Incomplete negotiations should not give rise to an estoppel claim

Question 7

Suggit v Suggit

Answer 7

Repeated assurance that property would be left to claimant via will could form basis of estoppel claim

Question 8

Uglow v Uglow

Answer 8

Detrimental reliance must be sufficient to render the promisor’s conduct unconscionable
Presumption of reliance - promisor must show the promisee did not rely on the promise

Question 9

Coombes v Smith

Answer 9

Must show the detriment resulted from reliance on assurance/mistake/assumption - did not leave her husband and leave with defendant because of reliance on promise
Normal domestic/family activity is not detrimental reliance

Question 10

Pascoe v Turner

Answer 10

Spending money on building is detrimental reliance

Question 11

Greasley v Cooke

Answer 11

Looking after landowner and family would be detrimental reliance

Question 12

Baker v Baker

Answer 12

Discretionary remedy - no award can exceed expectation

Question 13

Jennings v Rice

Answer 13

Expectation approach is more likely to be followed in commercial cases where mutual understanding is reasonably clear (family cases with unclear expectation will follow detriment approach)
Remedy must be proportionate
‘He would be alright’ was not sufficient assurance for the award of a house to be proportionate - awarded compensation instead

Question 14

Doddsworth v Doddsworth

Answer 14

Expected right to reside for life, awarded compensation

Question 15

Sledmore v Dalby

Answer 15

Expected right to reside for life, awarded nothing as had received free accommodation for 18 years

Question 16

Griffiths v Williams

Answer 16

Granted right to live in property for the rest of her life (spent money on improvements)