Propriety estoppel Flashcards
LEGAL INTERESTS
• rights in rem (the thing itself), enforceable against the whole world
EQUITABLE INTERESTS
• rights in personam, enforceable against the whole world EXCEPT:
“the bona fide purchaser of a legal estate for value without notice”
Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch D 96
The five probanda
- C must have made a mistake about his legal rights over land belonging to another
- C must have spent money or carried out some action relying on his mistaken belief
- D must know of his own right which is inconsistent with the right claimed by C
- D must know of the claimant’s mistaken belief
- D must have encouraged C when spending money in his mistaken belief, either actively or by abstaining from asserting his legal right.
Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees [1982] QB 133
• representation • reliance • detriment And - • unconscionable to deny a remedy
• Options to renew leases had become unenforceable because they were not registered
• The tenants, Taylor Fashions and Old & Campbell expended money on the premises in the expectation of exercising the options
• Neither the landlord nor the tenants were aware of the registration problem
Held (High Court)
• Taylor Fashion’s claim failed on the ground that D had only acquiesced and had not known that the options were unenforceable
• Old & Campbell’s claim succeeded as D had actively encouraged their expenditure
Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 929
positive assurance of rights
• A father encouraged his son, Jack Baker, to build a bungalow on his land. The son built it at his own expense using mainly his own labour. The house was completed and the son moved in in 1931 and he remained there. In 1951 the father died and left all his property to his live in partner, Ms Inwards. In 1963 Miss Inwards brought proceedings seeking to remove Mr Baker from the property.
Held:
• Mr Baker was entitled to remain in the property. His expenditure of money on the land at his father’s encouragement raised an
Ramsden v Dyson [1866] LR 1 HL 129
mere silence
- Owns the entirety of Huddersfield. Case was brought by Ramsden (landowner) who brought proceedings against tenant, involved in domestic violence.
- The effect was that common law confirmed that Ramsden had the power to evict at will. This had detrimental effects to the rest of the tenants.
- Held that they were not entitled to their leases.
Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210
future rights under a will
- Gillet was persuaded by Holt to leave his education and work for him in his farm. he told him that he would leave the farm to him by will. However, he executed a will in which Gillet did not receive the farm. He claimed a proprietary estoppel. After an investigation into how they were running the farm, the claimant was dismissed and subsequently claimed a proprietary estoppel. The trial judge found against the claimant, who appealed.
- In conclusion, on the appeal, the court found in favour of the claimant. it was argued that there was no need for the defendant to do anything additional to make his promise irrevocable. Moreover, the court also stated that the three requirements of proprietary estoppel are often intertwined and are not separate. In addition, detriment need not be financial. Therefore, the fact that he gave up his education in reliance to his promise was held to be enough.
Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18
future rights under a will
• C worked for nearly 30 years without pay on a farm which belonged to his relative (D)
• In 1990, D gave C bonus notice on two assurance policies on his own life and said ‘That’s for my death duties’
• D made a will under which he left C his entire residuary estate, but the will was destroyed when they fell out and no new will was ever made and D died intestate
Lower court decisions
• The trial judge found that the bonus notice to C and the remark to C in 1990 was an assurance that he will inherit the farm and that the conduct of D up to his death further encouraged C of that notion
- The Court of Appeal held that the ‘implicit statements’ did not amount to clear and unequivocal representation
- Held (House of Lords)
- C had title to the farm under proprietary estoppel
- Understood in their context, the statements and conduct of D were clear enough to give rise to an estoppel
- The fact that the extent of the farm might fluctuate over time was no obstacle to an estoppel arising
Greasley v Cooke [1980] 1 WLR 1306
reliance
• Miss Cooke, a maid, was assured by members of the family that she could stay in the property for the rest of her life. Furthermore, she cohabited with one of the members of family. she continued to look after the house, and also cared for another member of the family who was mentally ill.
Held:
• In conclusion, Lord Denning held in that D did not need to prove that she had relied upon assurances given to her. it was presumed, based on her conduct.
• For example, instead of looking for another job, she stayed on in the house looking after Kenneth and Clarice. Moreover, there is a presumption that she did so, relying on the assurances given to her by Kenneth and Hedley. Thus, the burden is not on her, but on them, to prove that she did not rely on their assurances. Consequently, they did not prove it, nor did their representatives. So, she is presumed to have relied on the promise.
Jones (A E) v Jones (F W) [1977] 1 WLR 438
reliance
- a son left his job and house, and moved his family into his father’s house. he gave his father money amounting to a quarter of the purchase price of the house, on the understanding that the house was his. However, when the father died, the house vested in the defendant’s stepmother. Consequently, she demanded him to pay rent and sued him when he refused.
- In conclusion, the court held that the claimant and defendant were tenants in common having three quarters and one quarter shares respectively. Thus, D was granted a life interest in the property and a quarter share in the house. Moreover, the claimant was not entitled to claim rent from him. Proprietary Estoppel was established on the grounds that the father’s conduct induced the defendant to rely on it to his detriment in giving up his house and job (Lord Denning). Thus, the order of sale was refused. This was because the purpose for buying the house to provide the defendant with a home was still ongoing.
Coombes v Smith [1986] 1 WLR 808
reliance must be based on the assurance
- both parties were married when they became lovers. D bought a house and when the C became pregnant by the D, she left her husband. They started living together and C gave up her job before she had the baby. D assured her that she would always have a roof over her head. Relationship ended. She sought to continue to occupy the property until her child was 17 years old.
- In conclusion, the court held that no proprietary estoppel had arisen. She did not have any rights in the property. Court considered that the facts were not enough to raise a presumption of reliance by course of conduct. It would be unreal to find out that she became pregnant in reliance on some mistaken belief as to her legal rights. She allowed herself to become pregnant because she wished to live with the D and to bear his child.
Pascoe v Turner [1979] 1 WLR 431
reliance
- a housekeeper who became Mr Pascoe’s lover was given an assurance. Furthermore, this occurred on a number of occasions that ‘the house is your and everything in it’. Moreover, in reliance on that assurance she carried out improvements to the house. Although the improvements were modest, their cost represented a large part of the defendant’s savings. Consequently, she claimed a constructive trust of the entire beneficial interest.
- In conclusion, the principle claim failed, but an equity had nevertheless been established in the form of a proprietary estoppel. Since Mr Pascoe had encouraged or acquiesced in the housekeeper making improvements to the house in belief that the property belonged to her, this gave rise to an estoppel. Therefore, to do justice to the housekeeper, the court ordered the transfer of the property to her.
Campbell v Griffin [2001] EWCA Civ 990
reliance
- The claimant, Campbell, moved in with a much older couple, Mr and Mrs Ascough, as a lodger. Their relationship became one of affection and he became their carer, preparing their meals, washing them and putting them to bed. They promised him he could live in the house for the rest of his life. Mr Ascough executed a will to this effect. However, Mrs Ascough was too senile to change her will. When Mr Ascough died the land passed to his wife under the right of survivorship. When she died, the claimant got nothing. He brought an action under proprietary estoppel.
- The Court of Appeal found for the claimant. The claimant had done more than would have been expected of any lodger without payment. In Wayling v Jones[1995] 2 FLR 1029 it was held that the promise need not be the sole inducement for the claimant’s conduct. The court recognized that Campbell had mixed motives, namely the prospect of gain and his fondness for the couple. Therefore, his conduct was probably influenced by the couple’s promises. He was awarded a payment of £5000 instead of an interest in the property as this would have held up the administration of the estate for a generation.
Gillet v Holt [2001] Ch 210
detriment
- Gillet was persuaded by Holt to leave his education and work for him in his farm. Furthermore, he told him that he would leave the farm to him by will. However, he executed a will in which Gillet did not receive the farm. He claimed a proprietary estoppel. After an investigation into how they were running the farm, the claimant was dismissed and subsequently claimed a proprietary estoppel. The trial judge found against the claimant, who appealed.
- In conclusion, on the appeal, the court found in favour of the claimant. Furthermore, it was argued that there was no need for the defendant to do anything additional to make his promise irrevocable. Moreover, the court also stated that the three requirements of proprietary estoppel are often intertwined and are not separate. In addition, detriment need not be financial. Therefore, the fact that he gave up his education in reliance to his promise was held to be enough.
remedies
- Satisfying the Equity
* Based on Unconscionability
