Proprietary Estoppel Flashcards
Definition of Proprietary Estoppel
Denning in Moorgate Mercantile v Twitchings: when a man by his words or conduct, has led another to believe in a particular state of affairs, he will not be allowed to go back on it when it would be unjust or inequitable for his to do so.
Proprietary estoppel acts
- informally as a way that proprietary rights can arise.
- can be a cause of action (unlike promissory estoppel)
The court will look at the matter in the round as to whether there is ground for proprietary estoppel
Gillet v Holt
The elements must be present in some form for a claim of proprietary estoppel to succeed
Taylors Fashion v Liverpool Victoria
- representation or assurance
- reliance on assurance
- detriment due to reliance
- unconscionability
Representation or assurance
There must be either a representation or assurance, or an expection that they have or will have, rights in the defendant’s land
The form of Rep and Ass
- actively telling the claimant that they have or will receive rights
- a passive acquiescing knowledge of the claimant’s mistaken expectation
The assurance need only be ‘clear enough for the parties involved to understand it
Thorner v Major
- a lower threshold in a domestic context.
Where a landowner promises to leave a claimant in his will
Gillet v Holt - was an insufficient gift
Promising to leave a property in a will is insufficient by itself, it must be accompanied by promises during the testator’s lifetime
Suggitt v Suggitt.
Incomplete negotiations in a Comercial context
Crabb v Arun - claim succeeded due to the council’s conduct
Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row - the claimant was well aware that there was no contract
Reliance on assurance
The claimant must act in reliance on the assurance.
i.e. the claimant would not have acted as they did had they not be assured of a property right.
Detriment due on assurance
The claimant must have suffered detriment as a result of their reliance upon the assurance.
e.g. financial loss
Selling land in reliance upon an assurance was detrimental reliance
Crabb v Arun
Working for a landowner without payment was detrimental reliance
Wayling v jones
Devoting your entire working life to the family farm without considering alternative employment was detrimental reliance.
Moore v Moore
Unconscionability
Need to look at the whole package (Yeo v Wilson)
The landowner’s behaviour must have been unconscionable
Unconscionability is the key element of establishing proprietary estoppel
Taylors Fashion v Liverpool Victoria Trustees
- without it, the claim will fail
Unconscionability is not enough on it’s own - it must be accompanied by an assurance and detrimental reliance
Re Basham
Cobbe
Just because the four elements are present and an estoppel has been established does not give the claimant an entitlement to a remedy.
Only the right to seek a remedy from a court
An award of remedy cannot generally exceed the claimant’s expectation
Baker v Baker
Remedy: the transfer of the freehold
Pascoe v Turner
Remedy: the right to reside for life
Griffiths v Williams
Remedy: the granting of an easement
Crabb v Arun
Remedy: the granting of a financial award
Dodsworth v Dodsworth
The award of no remedy
Sledmore v Dalby
Unconscionability due to undue influence
Abbey v Stringer
Remedy: stopping the transfer of property
Thorner
Did not stop the selling of the property to the lender, the equitable interest was not overriding.
Mortgage Express v Lambert
