Proprietary Estoppel Flashcards
Moorgate Mercantile v Twitchings
Ratio: Proprietary estoppel is ‘a principle of justice and equity. It comes to this: when a man, by his words or conduct, has led another to believe is a particular state of affairs, he will not be allowed to go back on it where it would be unjust or inequitable for him to do so’.
Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management
Ratio: 1. A claim based on estoppel must satisfy several requirements, with unconscionability playing an underlying unifying role. 2. Appeared to limit the doctrine to situations where the landowner had promised the claimant a distinct proprietary right and the claimant believed that the promise was binding and irrevocable - this was departed from in Thorner v Major. 3. Unconscionability should be an objective value judgement that unifies and confirms the other elements.
Facts: Cobbe was a property developer who was involved in commercial negotiations concerning a building owned by Yeoman’s Row. Parties had reached an oral agreement in reliance on which Cobbe had incurred considerable expense. When landowner changed terms, Cobbe claimed an interest in the land on the basis of proprietary estoppel. Court of Appeal upheld his claim. HoL held that the parties were aware that there was no binding contract and so refused to find an estoppel. Lord Scott suggested that an assurance as to a specific proprietary right was necessary; this is unlikely in family situations. Lord Walker said that in family situations there must be a belief that the assurance is binding and cannot be revoked. This narrow view was expanded in Thorner v Major.
Gillett v Holt
Ratio: 1. When considering if an estoppel exists, the court must look at the matter in the round. 2. Promises to leave property in a will will be sufficient if accompanied by lifetime assurances.
AG HK v Humphrey’s Estate (Queen’s Gardens) Ltd
Ratio: Incomplete negotiations do not generally give rise to estoppel.
Facts: Claimant was allowed into occupation while the terms of the contract were being negotiated. Licence and the negotiations were explicitly made ‘subject to contract’ which meant they could be revoked at any time. Although the claimant suffered detriment, he had relied on incomplete negotiations, not an assurance and so this did not give rise to an estoppel.
Suggitt v Suggitt
Ratio: Promises to leave property in a will will be sufficient if accompanied by lifetime assurances.
Facts: Father repeatedly gave assurances to his son that he would leave him his farmland and, by implication, a home. The son and father fell out when the son dropped out of agricultural college, moved home and became dependent on the father. He did do some work around the farm. Father left all of the estate to his daughter with a power to transfer the farmland to the son if, in her absolute opinion, he was capable of managing it. Son successfully claimed through estoppel. Son was held to have suffered detriment as he worked for less than minimum wage and had ‘positioned his whole life on the basis of the assurances given to him and reasonably believed by him’.
Thorner v Major
Ratio: The assurance need only be ‘clear enough’ for parties involved to understand it and the threshold is lower in domestic situations.
Facts: Landowner gave claimant notice of an insurance policy bonus, telling him that the money was for his death duties. HoL found that there was an assurance.
Wayling v Jones
Ratio: 1. Once assurance and detriment have been proved, there is a presumption of reliance and the burden of proving otherwise is placed on the defendant. 2. Providing unpaid services in the landowner’s business = detriment.
Coombes v Smith
Ratio: If the defendant can show that the claimant would have suffered the detriment anyway, there will be no estoppel.
Facts: Claimant had an affair, became pregnant, left her husband and moved into house owned by her lover, although they did not live together. She did not work after the baby was born but made some improvements to the house. When the relationship ended, the claimant ended the fee simple. The court held that although the claimant had suffered detriment, this was not done in reliance on assurance of property rights and so there was not an estoppel claim.
Taylor’s Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd
Ratio: Introduced the test of unconscionability
Re Basham
Ratio: Unconscionability alone is insufficient.
Baker v Baker
Ratio: No award may exceed expectation.
Crabb v Arun DC
Ratio: 1. An award must be the minimum equity to do justice. 2. Example of an easement being granted as a remedy. 3. Selling off land in reliance on a promise = detriment.
Davies v Davies
Ratio: Expectation can be the starting point as long as it is clear, unchanging and not out of all proportion.
Dillwyn v LLewlyn
Ratio: Example of transfer of freehold being granted as a remedy.
Facts: Father told his son that he intended to transfer him some land, on which he could build a house. Son built the house with father’s approval. When the father died, the land was left to someone else. The son was awarded the house on the basis of estoppel. There was a written memorandum signed by the father expressing intention to donate the land to his son and there was detrimental reliance by the son.
Pascoe v Turner
Ratio: 1. Example of transfer of freehold being granted as a remedy. 2. Effecting improvements in a landowner’s property = detriment.
Facts: Claimant was a lady who lived with a man in his house for a number of years. He repeatedly made assurances that the house and contents were hers but never transferred them formally. When their relationship ended, he moved out. The claimant had spent 25% of her savings improving the property. Her reliance was great and so she was awarded the fee simple, as this is what she had expected.
