Proprietary Estoppel Flashcards
What is proprietary Estoppel
It is a remedy against a landowner who has acted unconscionably while trying to assert their strict rights as the owner to deny the C any entitlement.
What other definitions of Proprietary Estoppel are there
In Layton v Martin - Can the legal owner of a property defeat the expectation of an interest in that property. Even though the expectation arouse from his conduct which the claimant relied on
Moriarty - PE is an informal creation of interests
in Land whenever a person has acted detrimentally in reliance upon an oral assurance
What was the purpose of PE and did it achieve its purpose
Purpose - was to mitigate the difficulties that came from an overreliance - The law was too strict and difficult to satisfy - soo 0 successful claims in over 100 years
THE EVOLUTION OF PE - Willmott v Barber
Judge laid down 5 probanda for PE -
- A plaintiff must have made a mistake as to his legal rights
- P must have expended some money or done some act on the faith of his mistaken belief
- The possessor of the legal right must know of the existence of his own right which is inconsistent with the rights claimed by the plaintiff.
- The possessor of the legal right must know of the plaintiff’s mistaken belief of his rights - if he doesn’t, there is nothing which calls upon him to assert his own right.
- The D - the possessor of the legal right must have encouraged the plaintiff n his expenditure of money or nt other acts which he has done
THE EVOLUTION OF PE - Taylor fashions
it would be unconscionable for a party to be permitted to deny that which knowingly or unknowingly, he has encouraged or allowed another to assume to his detriment. Made PE about unconscionability and not about prevention of fraud
After Taylor fashions what were the three requirements for a PE
Assurance - A statement or an action by the D, who ought to appreciate that the claimant will rely on it
Reliance- An act by the C in the reasonable belief that he has or will get an interest in land. Induced by the
detriment or action
Detriment - a detriment to the C if the defendant is entitled to resile from his statement or action.
Gillet v Holt
All three elements are linked
It has become apparent that the quality of the relevant assurances may influence the issue of reliance
What is an assurance
According to RE BARHAM, ‘an assurance is described as when ‘ one person A has acted to his detriment on the faith of a belief which was known and encouraged by another person B, that he is either going to be given a right in or over B’s property’
What is active assurance
owner of the land by conduct or words leaves the claimant to expect that they will have some interest in it.
Pascoe v Turner
- P moved in with D, as his housekeeper. The man told her not to worry because the house was hers and everything in it. Later on, he changed his mind and tried to sue for the house. The court said that the representation from the man to his mistress was enough to establish an estoppel.
Gillet V Holt
Plaintiff worked for nearly 40 years as a farm manager, Over the years D made assurances to the P that he will be the beneficiary of his will. Sour relatons lead to P being excluded from D’s will. He sued for the land when D passed.
COA : A definite agreement is not necessary, all we looking for is a link between promises relied on and the conduct that contribute the detriment.D on several occasions did assure P.
What was the principle that was formed after Gillet and Holt and what was the issue with this principle?
An estoppel could be estaslished by an oral agreement - this breaches LP (MP) Act 1989 s.2 , in order to have a contract for thr grant for an interest in land you have to have it n writing. (An enforceable contract is need).
Yeomans Row Managment LTD v Cobbe (Facts)
M. Cobbe and Mrs Lm reached an oral agreement. Mr Cobbe would make planning permission at his own expense and Mrs Lm would sell her flats to Mr Cobbe for 12 Million. After being encouraged by Mrs LM Cobbe incurred a significant expense in obtaining planning permission. but after securing planning permission Mrs LM changed her mind and increased the price of the flats to 20 million.
Yeomans Row Managment LTD v Cobbe (Judgement and principle )
COA: PE can be established prior to a contract
HOL: it was noted by Etherton J and Mummery LJ that PE could be justified by the unconscionability of Mrs Lm’s conduct. But PE cannot be the route unless all the ingredients for PE are present. the facts of the case were more about unconscionability and not actually a PE claim. HOL also said
PE cannot be prayed in aid n order to render enforceable an agreement that statute has declared void. Equity cannot surely contradict the statute. PE is not listed in subsection 5 as an exception therfore it is bound by rule. so it needs to be in writing
Thorner V Major (Facts)
David claimed to be entitled to a farm worth 2 million because he worked for the owner for nearly 40 years. This was expressed by Peter the owner the david would get the farm. Davids entitlement was drawn from inferences and peters conduct. For example n 1990 Peter gave David his insurance policy - which you do if you plan on giving someone something when you die. Also, peters will did leave a bulk of his estate David - but it was made null because of others in the will that Peter fell out with.
