Proprietory Estoppel

Question 1

Claimant must establish:
Assurance
Reliance
Detriment
Circumstances in which it would be unconscionable to deny claimant a remedy

Answer 1

Per Oliver J in Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria

Question 2

Circumstances claimant must establish should be looked at in the round

Answer 2

Gillet v Holt, Jennings v Rice

Question 3

Proper approach to proprietary estoppel is holistic

Answer 3

Thorner v Majors

Question 4

Assurance - representation is necessary, but only needs to be “certain enough” in all circumstances

Answer 4

Thorner v Majors (departing from Lord Scott in Yeoman’s v Cobbe that there had to be clarity about promised property right)

Question 5

Assurance - may be difference in commercial & domestic cases:

(1) As both parties had legal advice and familiar with commercial practice, estoppel could only bite if landowner made specific assurance, none given, so no assurance
(2) In a family case, claimant alleged that farmer had promised him farm would go to him on death

Answer 5

1. Yeoman’s v Cobbe

2. Thorner v Majors

Question 6

Assurance - claimants can establish right to particular land promised by deceased but not left to them in will

Answer 6

Suggit v Suggit

Question 7

Assurance - (1) has to relate to right in property (not a licence), but (2) is enough if person to whom the assurance is made reasonably believes it to be an assurance about land

Answer 7

1. West End Commercial v Trocadero

2. Thorner v Majors

Question 8

Assurance - wide worked unpaid for husband and promised property, there was assurance

Answer 8

Re Basham

Question 9

Repeated assurances that C would get farm at family events was valid

Answer 9

Gillett v Holt

Question 10

Reliance: can be assumed if clear assurances have been made & detriment has been suffered

Answer 10

Grealey v Cooke

Question 11

Claimant can reasonably rely on assurance, even if landowner did not intend that he should

Answer 11

Thorner v Majors

Question 12

Multiple motivations for reliance:

Ordinary human compassion and love do not defeat relaince

Answer 12

Chun v Ho, Campbell v Griffin

Question 13

Detriment: not a narrow concept

Answer 13

Lothian v Dixon

Question 14

Detriment does not need to relate to property or be financial

Answer 14

Per Walker LJ in Gillet v Holt

Question 15

Spending effort and money was detriment, therefore reliance

Answer 15

Inwards v Baker

Question 16

Land being rendered useless & sterile by council was detriment

Answer 16

Crabb v Arun DC

Question 17

Improving premises not detriment if it was not clear that they were acting on assurance of reliance

Answer 17

Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees

Question 18

Working on farm for 8 years and relying on repeated assurances was detriment

Answer 18

Gillet v Holt

Question 19

Leaving home and career was detriment

Answer 19

Chun v Ho

Question 20

3 Approaches to Unconscionability:

(1) Unconscionable to withdraw assurance after detrimental reliance
(2) Unconscionable to give assurance that make claimant believe that they have interest in land, notwithstanding formality requirements
(3) Unconscionability can arise from all the facts taken together

Answer 20

1. Per Lord Walker LJ in Gillet v Holt
2. Attorney General of Hong Kong v Humphrey Estates
3. Yeo v Wilson

Question 21

Whichever approach is taken, estoppel is not a remedy to unconscionable conduct per se; it is a response to an assurance about land that is relied on to someone’s detriment, and where it would be unconscionable for that assurance to be withdrawn

Answer 21

Yeoman’s v Cobbe

Question 22

If claimant has acted unconscionably, then estoppel will not be established:

1. bullying by claimant
2. undue influence by claimant
3. Fabricating documents

Answer 22

1. Yeo v Wilson
2. Murohy v Rayner
3. Gotherer v Orange Contract Scaffolding Ltd

Question 23

Remedies:

Court has discretion as to how to satisfy the estoppel

Answer 23

Pascoe v Turner

Question 24

Court’s approach is to remedy the unconscionability, not to measure either the reliance or expectation of loss.
Court seeks to do justice between parties, not enforce exact terms of bargains.

Answer 24

Per Walker LJ in Jennings v Rice, confirmed in Davies v Davies

Question 25

Equity by estoppel is a proprietary right capable of binding successors in title

Answer 25

s. 116 LRA 2002

Question 26

When equity is crystallised, it can take any forms:

1. Expenditure on improvements reimbursed
2. Freehold title converted to claimant after assurances that it would be hers
3. Council blocked access point, Court found claimant ha easement
4. Lease granted
5. Licence granted
6. 25% share in property
7. no concrete remedy because equity was satisfied by benefits already received.

Answer 26

1. Dodsworth v Dodsworth
2. Pascoe v Turner
3. Crabb v Arun DC
4. Lloyd v Dugdale
5. Parker v Parker
6. Arif v Anwar

Question 27

Estoppel vs Third Parties:

(1) estoppel can bind a 3rd party,
(2) estoppel does nor need to satisfy the statutory formalities

Answer 27

1. s. 116 LRA 2002, Halifax v Popeck, Henry v Henry

2. Yaxley v Gotts

Question 28

Estoppel v non-purchasers:
If non-purchaser acquires title from the landowner, who is estopped, then he is position as the original landowner (also estopped)

Answer 28

Voyce v Voyce

Question 29

Estoppel v Purchaser:
If land is sold before estoppel is crystallised, then the estoppel is a property right. Therefore in registered land, the estoppel must be protected either by a notice or by reason of overriding interest through discoverable and actual occupation (per s. 29 LRA 2002 and schedule 3)

Answer 29

If property right of estoppel is not protected by notice, or schedule 3, then estoppel will not bind, per Lloyd v Dugdale.