Proprietory Estoppel Flashcards
Claimant must establish: Assurance Reliance Detriment Circumstances in which it would be unconscionable to deny claimant a remedy
Per Oliver J in Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria
Circumstances claimant must establish should be looked at in the round
Gillet v Holt, Jennings v Rice
Proper approach to proprietary estoppel is holistic
Thorner v Majors
Assurance - representation is necessary, but only needs to be “certain enough” in all circumstances
Thorner v Majors (departing from Lord Scott in Yeoman’s v Cobbe that there had to be clarity about promised property right)
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
- Yeoman’s v Cobbe
2. Thorner v Majors
Assurance - claimants can establish right to particular land promised by deceased but not left to them in will
Suggit v Suggit
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
- West End Commercial v Trocadero
2. Thorner v Majors
Assurance - wide worked unpaid for husband and promised property, there was assurance
Re Basham
Repeated assurances that C would get farm at family events was valid
Gillett v Holt
Reliance: can be assumed if clear assurances have been made & detriment has been suffered
Grealey v Cooke
Claimant can reasonably rely on assurance, even if landowner did not intend that he should
Thorner v Majors
Multiple motivations for reliance:
Ordinary human compassion and love do not defeat relaince
Chun v Ho, Campbell v Griffin
Detriment: not a narrow concept
Lothian v Dixon
Detriment does not need to relate to property or be financial
Per Walker LJ in Gillet v Holt
Spending effort and money was detriment, therefore reliance
Inwards v Baker
Land being rendered useless & sterile by council was detriment
Crabb v Arun DC
Improving premises not detriment if it was not clear that they were acting on assurance of reliance
Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees
Working on farm for 8 years and relying on repeated assurances was detriment
Gillet v Holt
Leaving home and career was detriment
Chun v Ho
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
- Per Lord Walker LJ in Gillet v Holt
- Attorney General of Hong Kong v Humphrey Estates
- Yeo v Wilson
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
Yeoman’s v Cobbe
If claimant has acted unconscionably, then estoppel will not be established:
- bullying by claimant
- undue influence by claimant
- Fabricating documents
- Yeo v Wilson
- Murohy v Rayner
- Gotherer v Orange Contract Scaffolding Ltd
Remedies:
Court has discretion as to how to satisfy the estoppel
Pascoe v Turner
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.
Per Walker LJ in Jennings v Rice, confirmed in Davies v Davies
Equity by estoppel is a proprietary right capable of binding successors in title
s. 116 LRA 2002
When equity is crystallised, it can take any forms:
- Expenditure on improvements reimbursed
- Freehold title converted to claimant after assurances that it would be hers
- Council blocked access point, Court found claimant ha easement
- Lease granted
- Licence granted
- 25% share in property
- no concrete remedy because equity was satisfied by benefits already received.
- Dodsworth v Dodsworth
- Pascoe v Turner
- Crabb v Arun DC
- Lloyd v Dugdale
- Parker v Parker
- Arif v Anwar
Estoppel vs Third Parties:
(1) estoppel can bind a 3rd party,
(2) estoppel does nor need to satisfy the statutory formalities
- s. 116 LRA 2002, Halifax v Popeck, Henry v Henry
2. Yaxley v Gotts
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)
Voyce v Voyce
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)
If property right of estoppel is not protected by notice, or schedule 3, then estoppel will not bind, per Lloyd v Dugdale.
