Proprietary Estoppel Flashcards
Proprietary Estoppel
Equitable doctrine that established proprietary rights or affects existing rights
Can be used as a defence or a basis for a claim
Often used where parties have not been clear as to precise proprietary right to be created or failed to follow formalities
Moorgate Mercantile Co v Twitchings
“Where 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 him to do so
Probanda:
Ramsden v Dyson:
- C made mistake as to his rights over the owner’s land
- C spent money/did some other act because of the mistake
- O aware of his own rights
- O aware of C’s mistake
- O encouraged C, directly or indirectly, by not asserting his own rights
Probanda are not strict rules. Is it unconscionable for the defendant to seek to take advantage of the mistake, which, at the material time, everyone shared
Taylors Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees
Representation
Landowner must create some sort of expectation, either through active representation or passive acquiescence
Representation need not be in precise terms, but must be sufficiently certain as to some sort of entitlement; conduct and oblique remarks may be sufficient
Thorner v Major
Incomplete negotiations rarely give rise to estoppel as not intended to be binding
AG of HK v Humphrey’s Estate
Promises to leave property under will could form the basis of an estoppel in certain circumstances - assured H privately and in front of witnesses that he would inherit farm, made several wills to that effect but left nothing in final will
Gillett v Holt - statement of intention is insufficient in itself, but if it goes beyond that e.g. is repeated over many years, in a way that is inconsistent with it being revocable, it may amount to assurance
Seems to require an assurance as to a specific proprietary right and belief by claimant that assurance is binding - narrow application
Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management - more certainty needed in commercial cases
Assurance must be ‘clear enough’. May be more uncertain in family/domestic setting
Thorner v Major
Detriment - continuing in employment, not seeking or accepting other job offers, carrying out work and spending time beyond employee’s duty and taking no substantial steps to secure future wealth, expenditure on farmhouse = detriment
Gillett v Holt
Detriment - improvements to landowner’s property
Inwards v Baker; Griffiths v Williams; Pascoe v Turner
Detriment - unpaid work in landowner’s business
Wayling v Jones
Detriment - unpaid work in landowner’s home
Campbell v Griffin; Greasley v Cooke
Detriment - giving up job and accommodation to be near landowner
Maharaj v Shand
Detriment - selling land he wouldn’t sell otherwise
Crabb v Arun DC
Detriment must be suffered in reliance of assurance. If C would suffer detriment anyway, there can be no estoppel
Coombes v Smith
Unconscionability
Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees
Unconscionability is insufficient in itself, but where other 3 elements are found, it is likely that the court will find that the landowner acted unreasonably by enforcing strict legal rights
Re Basham deceased
If land is sold before the remedy is awarded
equity by estoppel has effect from the time the equity arises as an interest capable of binding a successor in title
Equity may bind a purchaser - binding if in actual occupation; if not, must be protected by notice on charges register/doctrine of notice - Lloyd v Dugdale
Remedies
Expectation approach - what claimant expected irrespective of whether expectation exceeds detriment suffered
Detriment approach - compensates claimant for broad detriment suffered, not just financial
No award can exceed the claimant’s expectation
Baker v Baker
BUT in Crabb v Arun DC - expectation was easement for a fee, but free easement granted
Must be proportionality between expectation and detriment
Jennings v Rice
Transfer or freehold
Griffiths v Williams
Right to reside for life
Pascoe v Turner
Damages
Dodsworth v Dodsworth; Jennings v Rice
Nothing
Sledmore v Dalby (had somewhere else to live; legal owner more vulnerable)
