Proprietary Estoppel

Question 1

PE - Remember Equitable maxims!

Answer 1

C must have clean hands!

Dalby can also defeat a claim that the landowner acted unconscionably, REGARDLESS of level of reliance and detriment

Question 2

Lord Walker (Gillet v Holt) on unconscionability

Answer 2

“The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine. In the end the court must look at the matter in the round” –> looking at assurance, reliance and detriment

Question 3

Sidney Bolson v Karmios

Answer 3

Denning: representee must REASONABLY be of impression that representor intends them to rely

Question 4

Proprietary estoppel vs. promissory estoppel

Answer 4

Proprietary estoppel can be used as a sword i. e. actually bring a claim for a right in the land

Question 5

Remedies: no award

Answer 5

Equity has already been satisfied (Sledmore v Dalby)

Question 6

Problem with the “expectation-based” approach to remedies arising from PE

Answer 6

Tends to presume expectation of claimants and might be disproportionate to any detriment suffered

Question 7

1) Promise/assurance/representation
2) Reliance
3) Detriment
Then
4) Unconscionability?

Answer 7

Holistic approach, but still apply each of the 3 key components before drawing a conclusion based on overall unconscionability

Question 8

Williams v Staite

Answer 8

Lack of clean hands may defeat claim for PE and defeat arguments of 4 categories: Cs knew all along that they had no permission at all to built on the land

Question 9

“Reliance”

Answer 9

If C can argue “change of position” due to reliance on assurance, they might be able to prove the second of the Taylor Fashions components

Question 10

Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees

Answer 10

Oliver J’s more flexible test: promise made by landowner, relied on by C, to a detriment and unconscionable to allow landowner to go back on promise

Question 11

Historical development of PE

Answer 11

Fraud-based by landowner (Willmott v Barber) –> unconscionability-based (Taylor Fashions)

Question 12

Thorner v Major (now leading case)

Answer 12

Lord Walker:
Other than looking holistically at element of unconscionability, stating point is to look at representation/assurance before going on to look at reliance and detriment, contradicting himself in Gillett v Holt

Question 13

PE: s. 116 LRA 2002

Answer 13

Once key elements explained needed for PE and also the role of the courts in making an award –> VITAL to demonstrate how such a right might be protected against 3rd parties

Question 14

Greasley v Cooke

Answer 14

MIXED MOTIVES OK - Denning: her unpaid care-work was evidence that she clearly relied on assurance that she could remain in property. It didn’t matter that she entered into a relationship with one of the family members

Question 15

Pascoe v Turner

Answer 15

MIXED MOTIVES OK - Although Mrs Turner’s actions could also have been based on her feelings for her former partner Mr Pascoe, reliance on his promise that the house would be hers was ONE of the reasons she moved in and renovated –> title to property

Question 16

Remedies: full transfer

Answer 16

Where equitable to award full title (Pascoe, Re Basham)

Question 17

RELIANCE: turning down of substantive employment opportunities

Answer 17

Thorner, Dugdale, Ottey v Grundy

Question 18

Ownership: PE v. constructive trust

Answer 18

PE: range from nothing to full title
CT: quantification based on “holistic contributions” (Hale in Stack v Dowden)

Question 19

Campbell v Griffin

Answer 19

MIXED MOTIVE OK - C. stated categorically he would have cared anyway for elderly couple who promised him their property but died intestate –> assurance was ONE of the reasons for him staying and caring for them

Question 20

PE vs. constructive trusts

Answer 20

Dixon, Lord Walker: overlap between the two

Lady Hale’s holistic approach in Stack v Dowden: concept constructive trust now more all-embracing - seems that almost any contribution by C towards well-being of registered proprietor could now be seen as giving rise to constructive trust

Both based on reliance, detriment and unconscionability

Question 21

Inwards v Baker

Answer 21

Denning: the minimum necessary to achieve justice
Similar situation to Dillwyn, awarded life interest to son who had built on land promised by father - son never expected full title!

Question 22

s. 116

Answer 22

Equity by estoppel that would rank in priority from the time the equity arises - meaning BACK-DATED to the time one can establish the promise, reliance and detriment occurred

LRA 2002: Estoppel rights can clearly be said to be proprietary rights in the land

1) Register s. 116 interest as a notice with land registry prior to transfer, or
2) actual occupation (Sched. 3, para. 2) –> enforce overriding interest following s. 29 priority rules. MORE LIKELY (because C will have no idea they have such right)

Question 23

Lord Scott, leading judgement in Yeoman’s Row

Answer 23

Went further than Lord Walker: Total clarity requirement (estoppel requires clarity as to the objet and the interest in the property)

PE should be applied sparingly! landowner should not be estopped from asserting an agreement is void for non compliance with statute (s. 2 LP(MP)A)
Lord Walker: total clarity requirement virtually extinguishes PE

Question 24

Estoppel > constructive trust

Answer 24

If C successfully claims beneficiary status under constructive trust, doctrine of overreaching becomes distinct possibility. Estoppel rights cannot be overreached - this mechanism applies ONLY to beneficiaries under a trust

Pre-Stack: equitable quantification based on financial contributions, safer bet to follow CT route
Now: loosening of reins in Thorner –> estoppel might be preferable

CT: assurance must be “clear and unequivocal” (Arif v Anwar)
PE: “clear enough, identifying specifiable proprietary interest Thorner)

Question 25

Schedule 3: estoppel rights

Answer 25

Under Schedule 3 LRA 2002, para. 2, anyone who has a PRE-EXISTING PROPRIETARY right and is in discoverable occupation can use actual occupation as overriding interest against new proprietors (s. 29 priority rules)

Question 26

Gillet v Holt: detriment

Answer 26

Benefit does not extinguish detriment: detriment to be judged from the moment arrangement/relationship ends

Question 27

Crabb v Arun District Council

Answer 27

Promise has to be clear and unequivocal

Question 28

Henry v Henry

Answer 28

Contrasts Dalby: Henry had also lived rent free but had suffered greater detriment through battling to provide for his family and giving up opportunities elsewhere on the strength of the assurance made

Question 29

Yeoman’s Row Management v Cobbe

Answer 29

Lord Walker: Mr Cobbe was running a commercial risk, with his eyes open (obtaining planning permission for Yeoman’s Row to buy a property for £12 million)and could not rely on assurance given

Question 30

Commercial vs. non-commercial premises

Answer 30

Yeoman’s (commercial risk with eyes open) –> Thorner (loosening of almost total clarity requirement, albeit in domestic setting)

Question 31

Jennings v Rice

Answer 31

Lord Walker on the problem of the “expectation-based” approach: courts do what’s necessary o avoid unconscionable result –> disproportionate remedy cannot be the right way to do that
ECHOED by his view in Holt - court’s objective is to do justice between parties

Question 32

Remedies: partial transfer

Answer 32

To do the minimum necessary (Yaxley, Thorner)

Question 33

Contra Lord Scott’s argument (Yeoman’s Row Management v Cobbe):
PE circumvents statute (s. 2 LP(MP)A 1989) and is “unprincipled and unpredictable”

Answer 33

Explain 3 key elements, then go on to and demonstrate what might be regarded as the judicial safeguard: court’s discretion as to remedies even if PE is established (can even mean the equity has already been satisfied)

Question 34

Sledmore v Dalby

Answer 34

Detriment might not be measured fiscally (Holt) but here, any detriment was outweighed by the advantages Dalby had enjoyed, such as living rent free

Contrasts Henry v Henry

Question 35

PE based on express ASSURANCE vs. estoppel by acquiescence

Answer 35

Sidney Bolson vs. Ramsden v Dyson

Question 36

Yeoman’s Row vs. Thorner

Answer 36

Thorner resurrected PE by loosening Lord Scott’s restraints of total clarity - Lord Walker:
assurance needs to be only unambiguous and must appear to have been intended to be taken seriously –> assurance can be drawn from implications and inferences from direct statements/conduct

Question 37

Lord Walker in Yaxley: PE vs. constructive trust

Answer 37

Much common ground between the two, went further in Jennings, stating they are almost “indistinguishable”

Question 38

Wayling v Jones

Answer 38

MIXED MOTIVE OK - W. relied on assurance by partner Jones that he would leave him the business, evidenced in W. working for minimal wage

NOTE THE BUSINESS SETTING

Question 39

Gillett v Holt

Answer 39

Lord Walker (same as in Thorner v Major): holistic approach, components are not “watertight”
Priority even over a signed and executed will!
RELIANCE: moving and working for 40 years for low salary
DETRIMENT: Gillet had become independently wealthy despite having worker for low salary for Holt –> detriment not measured fiscally (given up studying)

Question 40

Remedies: £

Answer 40

Where a land transfer has already taken place (Campbell, Jennings - based on proportionality)

Question 41

Ramsden v Dyson || Dann v Spurrier

Answer 41

Promise can be made by silent acquiescence, landowner standing by and allowing C to suffer detriment because of initial representation
Lord Wensleydale: dishonest to remain passive and then profit at a later stage

Question 42

Willmott v Barber

Answer 42

Fry J’s 5 probanda for PE:
If the landowner had encouraged C to rely on an assurance knowing full well that C was mistaken in the belief that they would take the property
–> FRAUDULENT ELEMENT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO PROVE, so we move on to Taylor Fashions

Question 43

Lloyd v Dugdale

Answer 43

PE give C a pre-dated right in the land itself

Question 44

“Proprietary Estoppel”

Answer 44

Transfer of land is enforceable through its operation, even though no formalities have been followed.

NORMALLY: transaction should be in writing, not simply verbal. Deed (LPA 1925 s. 52(1)) or at least in written form and signed (LP(MP)A 1989, s. 2)

Question 45

What is a deed?

Answer 45

LP(MP)A 1989, section 1: signed by the parties in presence of a witness and delivered by an authorised person

Question 46

Dixon on estoppel rights

Answer 46

Estoppel rights are proprietary and can bind a 3rd party as an interest that overrides through actual occupation

Question 47

Dillwyn v Llewelyn

Answer 47

The courts must simply satisfy the equity: transfer of a freehold from father to son was only suitable remedy, as the expectation of the son could only be satisfied this way