Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
27 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is the basis and rationale of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel? |
The basis of the doctrine is to prevent a person from insisting on his strict legal rights when to do would be inequitable having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties. The rationale could be said to prevent unconscionable behaviour |
|
|
What are the three main elements of the doctrine? |
Assurance, reliance and detriment |
|
|
Can proprietary estoppel be used as a sword? |
Yes - it can be a sword rather than a shield |
|
|
Thorner v Major 2009 |
Representation must be "clear and unequivocal" (L Scott) Representation must be "clear enough" (L Walker, emphasising the context) |
|
|
CD v JDF 2006 |
McGuinness J unsure if mere acquiescence of silence would suffice as assurance, saying there must actually be some promise or at least a reasonably clear direct representation or inducement |
|
|
Brikrom Investments v Carr |
Reliance established once shown that representation calculated to influence judgment of reasonable man |
|
|
Bracken v Byrne |
Detriment suffered must be substantial; in this case planning application and negotiations with builder not enough |
|
|
McCarron v McCarron |
Provision of own services could constitute detriment |
|
|
Gillett v Holt 2001 |
There must be sufficient causal link between assurance relied on and detriment asserted. Detriment must be judged at moment when person who has given assurance seeks to go back on it. Test for whether sufficiently substantial is, whether it would be unjust or inequitable to allow assurance to be disregarded. Detriment need not consist of expenditure as long as it is something substantial. Issue of detriment to be approached as part of broad inquiry into whether repudiation of assurance unconscionable in all the circs |
|
|
Milroy v Lord |
Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift... but subsequent acts of donor may give rise to a proprietary estoppel claim |
|
|
Dillwyn v Llewelyn |
Son built house on father's land with his consent and informal memo showed father's intention to give. HL held F intention to convey fee simple would be effected by court even though left to others in will. It was the subsequent acts of the donor which gave rise to claim |
|
|
Smyth v Halpin |
Plaintiff asked F for a site to build house and F indicated family house would be his and suggested he build extension. Held Plaintiff's clear expectation was that he would have fee simple interest and concluded protection of equity arising from his expenditure required court order directing conveyance of interest. Giving effect to expectation in remedy |
|
|
How does proprietary estoppel arise in cases of common expectation? |
The key feature is that the parties have consistently dealt with one another in such a way as to reasonably cause one party to rely on a shared assumption that he would acquire rights in the other's property |
|
|
Ramsden v Dyson |
Lord Kingsdown dissent: if a man under an expectation created or encouraged by the landlord that he shall have a certain interest, takes possession with consent and in reliance on that expectation, with the knowledge of the landlord and without objection, spends money on the land, equity will compel the landlord to give effect to expectation. If however he knows the nature and extent of his interest and lays out money in the hope and expectation of getting something, and landlord has not created or encourage such, no claim |
|
|
AG of Hong Kong v Humphrey's Estate 1987 |
Applying Ramsden - expenditure must be created/encouraged. Agreed in principle that govt would grant company a specific property in exchange for flats belonging to company. Govt took possession of flats and did work on them but company pulled out before concluded contract. Privy Council said it would have to be established that company had created or encouraged a belief or expectation that they would not withdraw. No estoppel |
|
|
Haughan v Rutledge 1988 |
Blayney J held four conditions needed: detriment, expectation or belief, encouragement and no bar to equity. Plaintiffs let field from defendant for trial period and constructed racetrack, agreed that if they left after trial they would pay no rent and defendants would retain benefit of works carried out. Held second condition required plaintiffs to have built track in belief that they would obtain an interest and this had not been established; even if they had required belief, not encouraged by defendant |
|
|
How might a proprietary estoppel claim arise in cases of unilateral mistake? |
Where one party has made an error as to the nature of his rights, the crucial factor being that detriment is suffered by the party who innocently relies on the mistaken assumption that he has rights in land |
|
|
Ramsden v Dyson |
Cranworth: if a stranger builds on my land thinking it is his, and I am aware of his mistake but let him continue, equity will not allow me to assert my title. However, if a stranger builds on my land knowing it is mine, equity will not prevent me claiming the land with the benefit of all the expenditure |
|
|
Wilmott v Barber |
Fry J 5 probanda with restrictive effect: (1) claimant mistake as to legal rights (2) claimant spends money or some act on faith of mistaken belief (3) owner knows his right which is inconsistent with right claimed (4) owner knows of claimant's mistaken belief (5) owner encouraged either directly or by not asserting legal rights. |
|
|
Taylor's Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees 1982 |
Probanda could not apply eg in Ramsden because that focused on common expectation. A broader approach based on whether in circs it would be unconscionable for party to deny that knowingly or unknowingly he has allowed or encourage another to assume to his detriment |
|
|
Lim Teng Huan v Ang Swee Chuan |
Said enough if in all the circs it is unconscionable for representor to go back on assumption he permitted representee to make |
|
|
Taylor v Dickens |
Judge Weeks critical, "portable palm tree" |
|
|
Gillett v Holt 2001 |
Plaintiff spent lifetime working as farm manager for defendant friend, defendant repeatedly promised he would succeed to farming business and house. Had worked there since 16, almost 40 years and deprived himself of opportunity to better himself in other ways. Relations deteriorated and plaintiff was dismissed, property left to second named defendant. CA said where assurances were intended to be relied on and were in fact relied on it was not necessary to look for an irrevocable promise as it was the detrimental reliance on the promise which made it irrevocable. Matter must be looked at in the round and fundamental principle that equity prevents unconscionable conduct permeates all elements of the doctrine. |
|
|
Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management 2008 |
HL stand against unconscionability. Plaintiff reached oral agreement in principle with defendants that he would apply for planning permission for development of flats and if granted then defendants would sell for an upfront payment plus half of the proceeds of sale exceeding a certain amount. Following grant of pp defendants sought to make new agreement on financial terms. HL allowed appeal and said no prop estoppel - expectation was not that he would acquire a certain interest but that parties would negotiate a contract. He knew that agreement in principle was revocable. Lord Walker emphasised that a belief that you are entitled to the subject matter of the promise is necessary ie you believed assurance was binding and irrevocable. A subject to contract clause negates any such belief claimant may have. Note commercial context |
|
|
Thorner v Major 2009 |
Claimant had helped on farm after defendant's wife died. Worked very hard over 30 years but was not paid, indirect remarks that he would continue to be involved with farm after defendant's death. Left to plaintiff in will but destroyed after falling out with one of legatees, died without will. HL allowed plaintiff's appeal. Said Cobbe to be interpreted as requiring certainty of subject matter. Plaintiff entitled to have expectation fulfilled. Difference is the context |
|
|
Stack v Dowden 2007 |
HL said aim of remedy should be to reverse detriment suffered rather than a remedy which fulfils expectations but may be disproportionate to detriment suffered |
|
|
Jennings v Rice 2003 |
CA concluded expectation was no more than a starting point and essential requirement was proportionally between expectation and detriment. |
