Proprietary Estoppel * (im just dying dont mind me)

Question 1

Current test for proprietary estoppel?

Answer 1

• – Taylor Fashions —
  1. Representation (assurance)
  2. Reliance (∆ of position)
  3. Detriment

4. Unconscionability (proposed by Dixon)

Question 2

Old PE test?

[essay]

Answer 2

• – Willmott v Barber —
  1. Mistake (as to C’s legal rights)
  2. Monetary Loss
  3. D’s own knowledge of his own right
  4. D knows C’s mistake
  5. Encouragement, active or passive

Question 3

[Assurance] What are the requirements?

Answer 3

— Thorner v Major —
1. Lord Walker: Assurance should be ‘clear enough’, dependent on context
• Pascoe v Turner: ‘clear and unequivocal’
•Walton v Walton, Lord Hoffman: context is very important

• – Crabb v Arun DC —
  2. Assurance may be implicit, like erecting a gate for entry to land

— Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Mgmt —
3. Difference between commercial + domestic contexts
• No PE if:
(a) Experienced businesspeople w access to resources (should accept risks, should have known better)

Question 4

[Reliance] What is the test for reasonable reliance?

Answer 4

— Greasley v Cooke —
1. Has there been an assurance that objectively caused C to act in a particular way?
• G v C: C shown to have stayed bc family, not just bc of promise of ‘home for life’; C lost

— Wayling v Jones —
2. D must prove that C would have continued to act that way even w/o expectation of receiving something
• W v J: Could not prove that C would have stayed w/o promise, C won

— Campbell v Griffin —
3. If assurances + acts suggesting reliance, burden of proof shifts to D
• C v G: C won, but disproportionate to give him whole property; just paid money and to vacate when necessary

Question 5

[Detriment] What is the test for detriment?

Answer 5

• – Gillet v Holt —
  1. Substantial test: Where it would be unjust or inequitable to allow the assurance to be disregarded

2. Loss of $$ not required, just needs to be substantial

— Henry v Henry —
• First instance judge’s decision dismissed because did not consider detriments, e.g. working on the land and caring for an ill family member

Question 6

[Remedy] How will the remedy amount be judged, according to proportionality?

Answer 6

• – Crabb v Arun DC —
  1. (Lord Scarron) Is there any equity established?

2. What’s the extent of it?
3. What measures need to be taken to fulfil it?

• Can be pecuniary or otherwise

— Jennings v Rice —
• Whatever the minimum found proportionate between the expectation and the detriment

— Davies v Davies —
• No remedy awarded because C had mixed motives and intentions and did not consistently rely on promises to her detriment

Question 7

[Detriment] E.g. case (pre-LVT)?

Answer 7

Inwards v Baker
• Son expended time, money and effort to build bungalow on dad’s land with dad’s encouragement

• Son equitably entitled to licence for life

Question 8

[Unconscionability] Interpretations?

Answer 8

• Precise role is uncertain! *

— Gillet v Holt —
• Lord Walker: Encompasses holistic evaluation of whole circumstances

— Yeoman’s Row Mgmt v Cobbe —
• Lord Scott: More restricted, to be considered only if other criteria have been established

Question 9

Purpose of PE?

Answer 9

1. Stops a party from denying a matter of fact or law

2. Protects a party who has acted in reliance on an expectation

Question 10

‘Equity regards as done that which ought to be done’

Answer 10

Walsh v Lonsdale

Question 11

[Remedy] What are 2 academics’ views on how remedies should be awarded?

Answer 11

• Courts have a lot of discretion! *

Tee: Courts’ approach in using proportionality test is unfair; dependent on value of house
•E.g. £300,000 more ‘proportionate’ than £1,000,000 to detriment suffered by remaining and working in house

Robertson: Courts should instead look to ‘satisfying the equity’ and remedy the detriment suffered

Question 12

[Third Parties] How to enforce equity by estoppel against 3rd parties?

Answer 12

Rely on s116 LRA 2002
• Dependent on criteria under Sch 3 para 2 LRA 2002
• Including need to prove actual occupation!