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;
18 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Thornerv Major [2009] 1 WLR 776 |
3 essential elements to claim in proprietary estoppel:
1 representation 2 reliance 3 detriment
Gillet v Holt note 3 categories are not watertight
Work on cousins farm 30yrs no money oblique promise get farm. Court held assurance must be clear and unequivocal or clear enough |
|
|
dixon 2009 Conv 260 |
Suggests that in inheritance cases eg Gillet, and Thorne type cases would be better dealt with under remedial constructive trust rather than proprietary estoppel where the risk of bankruptcy or sale of land may scupper the person's claim. |
|
|
Dublin University Law Journal 2009 Is there a future for proprietary estoppel as we know it?Hilary Delany |
it is hard to reconcile the decisions of the House of Lords in Cobbe and Thorner, other than by acknowledging that the former related to a commercial transaction, while the latter did not |
|
|
Brackenv Byrne [2006] 1 ILRM 91 |
Detriment suffered must be substantial. Reiterated in McDonagh v Denton |
|
|
Gillettv Holt [2001]Ch 210 |
Robert Walker LJ - suffic causal link bet assurance and detriment, judge detriment when person goes back on promise, then q if detriment is suffic substantial for it to be unjust/inequitable to be disregarded. Detriment does not need to be financial |
|
|
Smyth v Halpin [1997] 2 ILRM 38 |
Son spent money on house on basis of assurance made by dad. Allowed perfection of gift in this case by giving fee simple to son |
|
|
AttorneyGeneral of Hong Kong v Humphrey's Estate[1987] AC 114 |
Deal bet govern and developer. Court followed principle that if land owner does not encourage spending of money on their land no estoppel will arise. |
|
|
Haughanv Rutledge [1988] IR 295 |
built track hoping that would ctn letting to them
fulfil 4 conditions before estoppel arises: 1 detriment 2 expectation/belief 3 encouragement 4 no bar to the equity |
|
|
Taylor's Fashions Ltd v LiverpoolVictoria Trustees Co. Ltd [1982] QB 133 |
Eng courts allow proprietary estoppel claim in broader manner.
Court held that would allow prop estoppel where it would be unconscionable to allow a party to deny what they had (un)knowingly allowed/encouraged anor to assume to his detriment |
|
|
Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210 |
work 40yrs on farm worked for less than normal promised everything.
Enough assurances made that were intended to be reliable. Unconscionability permeates all elements of doctrine 1 representation 2 reliance 3 detriment. Must look at the matter in the round not the individ elements |
|
|
Cobbev Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 1752lt |
Experienced prop developer and old lady. V vague oral agreement develop site and split profits. Lady went back on promise
Court held that the hopes themselves were not enough and could only use prop estoppel if the ingredients were present |
|
|
Griffiths 2009 Conv 141 |
Notes that advantages and disadvantages of swinging back to the more res model. Adv - comfort of certainty Disadv - fine distinctions will have to be drawn for the 3 requirements which sit uneasily with previous auth |
|
|
Piska (2009) 72 MLR 998 |
Calls Thorner the future and Cobbe retrograde but neither answer all the questions |
|
|
delany and ryan 2008 Conv 401 |
finds it ironic that one of the more obscure principles (unconscionability) 'should itself emerge as a clarifying force, casting fresh light upon and signalling new directions in equitable relief.' |
|
|
Dixon ‘Confining and defining proprietary estoppel: therole of unconscionability’ (2010) 30 LS 409 |
Estoppel allows the creation of property rights through the front door and is guarded by unconscionability and not always open. Thinks that there should be judicial discretion in these cases. |
|
|
Jenningsv Rice [2003]1 P & CR 8 |
Elderly lady no family, made comments to gardener that she would see him right. Did more and more for her, last years lived with her to care for her. Expected everything, got 200k.
First time trying to find middle ground bet reliance and expectation.
Court held if expectations were out of all proportion to detriment suffered |
|
|
pawlowski 2002 118 lqr 519 |
Undoubtedly, the importance of the Jennings and Campbell cases lies in the recognition that the primary function of proprietary estoppel is not to protect expectations but to prevent unconscionable conduct and to do justice between the parties. |
|
|
Suggitt v Suggitt [2012] EWCA Civ 1140 |
Son spent many years working on son’s farm and daughter geteverything. Trial judge was v generous. Daughter appealed to CofA which upheldtrial judge decision:"Ca? |
