Proprietary Estoppel & Trusts

Question 1

Current test for proprietary estoppel?

Answer 1

LVT (Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees)

1. representation (assurance)
2. Reliance (∆ of position)
3. Detriment
4. Unconscionable disadvantage (?)

Question 2

Old test for PE?

Answer 2

Willmott v Barber

1. Mistake
2. Monetary Loss
3. D’s own knowledge
4. D know C’s mistake
5. Encouragement

Question 3

What is the standard required for assurance? [PE]

Answer 3

Thorner v Major

“clear enough” (contextual w express/implied promise)
Close rs-> worked on farm 30 yrs no pay, thought would inherit when dies ( non-explicit)

Question 4

[Assurance] What if there is a discrepancy between act and speech? [PE]

Answer 4

Crabb v Arun

Council blocks gateway after negotiating to get access to road.

Act>Speech= enough

Question 5

[Assurance] Reasons to consider granting estoppel? [PE]

Answer 5

Cobbe v Yeoman

C feel confident, spend a lot of money for property under assumption that will split profits w D
D decided wants upfront.

Reasons why no estoppel:
• commercial context
• availability of legal advice
• risk in business context

Question 6

[Reliance] An example of reliance (Hint: Home for life) [PE]

Answer 6

Greasley v Cooke

Question 7

[Reliance] what is the minimum requirement for reliance? [PE]

Answer 7

Wayling v Jones

C behaved in a way that its “some form of inducement” (major contribution not necessary)

Question 8

[Detriment] Where can the detriment test be found and what is it? [PE]

Answer 8

Gillet v Holt

Walker LJ: Substantial test where it would be unjust or inequitable to allow the assurance to be disregarded (essential test of unconscionability)
loss of money not req.

Question 9

[Unconscionability] What issues are to be discussed about it? [PE]

Answer 9

Issues:
Dixon - Penicillin problem
Rights assurance- LL assurance amounts to assurance when certain enough
Formality Assurance- even if no formalities complied with??

Question 10

[Unconscionability] what 2 cases demonstrate courts standards about it? [PE]

Answer 10

COMMERCIAL- [Cobbe v Yeoman] assurance has to be strong

DOMESTIC- [Thorner v Major] assurance basically nothing

Question 11

What are the remedies in PE?

Answer 11

Jennings v Rice
• D obliged to do whatever minimum necessary to mitigate unconscionability (courts discretion).

obliged to ensure C doesn’t suffer detriment
Compensate C of any benefit D received
D under duty to honour committment

Question 12

What are the main differences between PE & CT?

Answer 12

PE:
• frustrated expectation
• ∆ of position may extend to circumstances
• Flexible remedies

CT:
• frustrated bargain
• ∆ position= express agreement
• remedies must be quantified

Question 13

What are trusts?

Answer 13

• (managing assets) Someone holding an asset on behalf of someone else.
• s53LPA-> 3(a) formalities not req. Usually need writing

Question 14

What are the roles of the trustee & beneficiaries?

Answer 14

• Trustee: person who manages trust

* Beneficiary: person who benefits from trust

Question 15

Types of trust?

Answer 15

• Express: Goodman v Gallant
• Resulting: Commercial
• Constructive: Domestic

Question 16

What is needed to have a resulting trust?

Answer 16

Act in character of purchaser

- only financial contribution.

Question 17

What are some presumptions existing in resulting trusts?

Answer 17

• If someone pays £ towards acquisition of property= presumed they intend contribution to be acknowledged
• Rebuttable evidence: if money advanced as loan lender gets no beneficial interest= money has not been contributed In character of purchaser.

Question 18

Where does the assumption that ‘domestic relationships create constructive trusts’ come from?

Answer 18

Kernott v Jones

Question 19

What are the remedies for a resulting trust?

Answer 19

Input=output (financially)

Question 20

What is the general case history behind Constructive trusts?

Answer 20

1. Gissing v Gissing: Inducement + C to act to their detriment
2. Eves v Eves: (Dennings flexible approach)
3. Eves criticised by: Grant v Edwards
4. Eves overruled by Lloyds Bank v Rosset

Question 21

What is the main case regarding Constructive trusts that sets out

1. the type of constructive trusts
2. the requirements

Answer 21

Lloyds Bank v Rosset

•Types of constructive trusts: Express & Implied bargain
• Requirements for implied bargain:
1. common intention ti share property beneficially
2. Direct contributions to principal or mortgage= inference necessary.

Question 22

What are some difficulties with Lloyds Bank v Rosset?

Answer 22

?????

Question 23

[CT][Quantification] Is it possible to infer an agreement through conduct?

Answer 23

Midland Bank v Cooke
• yes can infer agreement from conduct
• judge must survey :
- whole course of dealing relevant to their ownership & occupation of property
- sharing burdens & advantages.
• scrutiny will not confine itself to limited range of acts of direct contribution/sort needed to found beneficial interest

Question 24

[CT][Quantification] How is quantification judged?

Answer 24

Oxley v Hiscock
• extent of parties respective beneficial interests in property (interest in equity)
• if no evidence= Cooke.

Question 25

[CT][Quantification] What is the ruling case on quantification?

Answer 25

Stack v Dowden
• how much interest in equity
• Hale: did they intend their beneficial interests to be different from legal interests?
• almost everything can be considered
• intentions may change
• Neuburger critic: shouldn’t have diff rules for domestic rs.

Question 26

[CT][Quantification] When can one impute (vs infer) a decision?

Answer 26

Jones v Kernott
• can impute at the final stage of quantification
• infer intention before that stage.
• infer (their actions)
• impute (court ascribes intention to parties)
• can impute intention to what amount to share but cannot impute intention to share.