Proprietary Estoppel

Question 1

Which case gave rise to the requirements for estoppel?

Answer 1

Taylor’s Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees

Question 2

What was the main issue in Taylor’s Fashions v Liverpool Victoria?

Answer 2

A dispute concerning a right to renew a lease of commercial premises

Question 3

What does assurance pertain to?

Answer 3

Wide interpretation = mistake but also assumption / expectation..

Assurance of an interest in land made to claimant.

Question 4

Incomplete commercial negotiations?

Answer 4

AG of Hong Kong v Humphrey’s Estate (Queen’s Gardens)

Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management

Crabb v Arun DC

Question 5

AG of Hong Kong v Humphrey’s Estate (Queen’s Gardens)

Answer 5

detrimental reliance on incomplete negotiations is not enough in itself.

Question 6

Crabb v Arun DC?

Answer 6

informal arrangement between Crab and District council for access on understanding a proper easement would be granted in future. In reliance C disposed of only part of land with alternative access retaining land locked without easement land.

Court upheld easement and award it without payment (as he had expected).

Question 7

What was the award in Crabb v Arun DC?

Answer 7

Easement without payment, due to misconduct of defendant the industrial estate had been sterilised for a considerable period of time. This had to surpass any sum the plaintiff ought to have paid the defendant.

Question 8

Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management?

Answer 8

Informal deal whereby Cobbe spent money obtaining planning permission to develop land he expected YR to sell to hi. No binding agreement reached and YR demanded more for sale. Cobbe refused and claimed estoppel .

Question 9

Decision in Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row?

Answer 9

Cobbe knew negotiations incomplete and commercial context so access to legal advice. Therefore no estoppel.

Question 10

Griffiths v Williams facts?

Answer 10

Mother assured daughter she would ahem home for life. Daughter made improvements. When mother died and left house to someone else, payment for improvements (rather than outgoings which = rent) seen to be reliance. Was awarded lease.

Question 11

Gillet v Holt facts?

Answer 11

Gillet worked on farm for 40 years. Repeated assurances in public and private that he would inherit farm and G believed he was ‘a man of his word’.
not seeking employment elsewhere going above & beyond, paying for fittings and materials on property -= reliance.

Question 12

Thorner v Major?

Answer 12

cousin expected to inherit farm of his cousin and worked unpaid for 30 years. Oblique statements followed by handing over insurance policy bonus. Cousin revoked will and intended to but never remade it. Assurance was held to be ‘clear enough’.

Question 13

What is the presumption with regard to reliance?

Answer 13

That if claimant’s action follows the assurances it is done in reline and it falls to the defendant to disprove this. (Greasley v Cooke)

Question 14

What case rebutted the presumption of reliance?

Answer 14

Coombes v Smith: A woman moved in to a property owned, but not lived in by the person she was having an affair with after she fell pregnant with his baby. After 10 years and some improvements, court refused her an estoppel of the freehold as she acted as a person in an unhappy marriage in moving out.

Question 15

Examples of detrimental reliance in the following cases: 
Pascoe v Turner 
Gillet v Holt 
Wayling v Jones 
Greasley v Cook

Answer 15

Expenditure (objectively small but represented 25% of claimant’s worth)

work and missing opportunity

working for landowner without payment

Looking after owner and family,

Question 16

Examples of detrimental reliance in the following cases:
Crabb v Arun DC
Maharaj v Chand
Coombes v Smith

Answer 16

selling off land

giving up one’s home

NOT normal family / domestic activity.

Question 17

Maharaj v Chand?

Answer 17

Woman, in giving up her flat to move in with a man who told her she would always have a home was held to have relied to her detriment.

Question 18

Campbell v Griffin?

Answer 18

Clamant lodged with two elderly people. They become dependent upon him and assured him a home for life. When they died with no valid will, claimant was granted a fixed sum rather than right tor side for life.

Question 19

What kind fo knowledge must defendant have about claimant’s reliance?

Answer 19

Owner must have directly encouraged or acquiesced to the actions of the claimant.
General awareness will suffice.

Question 20

Greasley v Cooke?

Answer 20

Maid in a house formed relationship with owner’s son and was assured by him she would have a home for life. Looked after house and cared for mentally ill sister - despite not incurring expenditure, was held to have relied to her detriment.

Question 21

What does unconscionability mean?

Answer 21

shocking to the conscience (Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row).

Question 22

How can proprietary estoppel become enforceable in registered land?

Answer 22

s 116 LRA 2002

enter an s 32 notice and then, s 29(2) purchaser bound and claimant gets right to go to COURT to ask for award

Question 23

What happens in registered land if s 32 not entered?

Answer 23

s 29(1) pfv takes free unless an overriding interest under Sch 3 para 2.

Question 24

What is proprietary estoppel subject to in unregistered land?

Answer 24

Doctrine of notice.

Question 25

What are the two approaches with regard to remedies?

Answer 25

Expectation approach (Baker v Baker - no award can exceed expectation)

Detriment approach (the minimum equity to do justice Crabb v Arun DC) - wider and more modern. .

Question 26

when will the different approaches be used?

Answer 26

Jennings v Rice

Robert Walker LJ Detriment used in family cases where expectations uncertain.

Expectation used in business cases where mutual understanding in reasonably clear terms.

Question 27

Dodsworth v Dodsworth?

Answer 27

Younger brother and wife moved in with elder sister and spent money improving on basis they could live in property for life. They were awarded a license to occupy until money repaid.

Question 28

Sledmore v Dalby?

Answer 28

Mother in law fell out with son in law who lived in her property rent free. Despite the fact he met a new partner and only spent certain nights at the property he wanted a license to occupy. Court held Mr Dalby could pay rent himself and Mrs Sledmore needed smaller accommodation = more pressing. To give effect to her need minimum equity to do justice was to award him nothing.

Question 29

Pascoe v Turner?

Answer 29

Fee simple by estoppel to claimant who had been assured by partner that the house was hers. She spent 25% of her worth improving the property.

Question 30

Jennings v Rice

Answer 30

claimant expected a large house but only awarded £200,000. Expectation was put of all PROPORTION of what might have been expected as a fee for his services (full-time nursing care).
NB difficult to quantify detriment for increasing burden of care of elderly. Motivation may be reliance on assurance but also other benefits e.g. bed and board.

Question 31

What were the assurances in Jennings v Rice?

Answer 31

‘this will al be yours one day’.
BUT
not a suitable house for him to reside alone in
Also he was not aware of the extent of her wealth.