Proprietary Estoppel

Front 1

Cobbe v Yeoman's Row

Back 1

Promise to sell land if claimant Cobbe obtained planning application. No claim possible in PE because the defendant did not make a sufficiently clear promise regarding share of the profits.

Neuberger: 'parties too far away from a deal for PE claim'. Promise has to be reasonably certain. Walker: 'requires looking at context and facts, not obvious enough to devise a test'

Front 2

Thorner v Major

Back 2

"If a verbal promise is made to someone who subsequently relies on that promise to their detriment, that promise can be enforced under the principles of fairness and equity"

Front 3

Requirements (Lord Walker)

Back 3

Scholarly consensus that proprietary estoppel is based on three main elements: a representation or assurance made to the claimant; reliance on it by the claimant; and detriment to the claimant in consequence of his (reasonable) reliance

Underpinning this is the notion of unconscionability

Front 4

Three different strands of PE

Back 4

(i) Acquiescence

(ii) Representation

(iii) Promise

Front 5

Acquiescence

Back 5

(i) Acquiescence. Lord Neuberger in Fisher v Brooker: "The classic example of proprietary estoppel, standing by whilst one's neighbour builds on one's land believing it to be his property, can be characters as acquiescence"

Front 6

Representation

Back 6

(ii) Representation. Hopgood v Brown: "The requirement that the defendant must know of the true position at the time of the claimant's reliance does not apply if the defendant, rather than remaining passive and failing to correct the claimant's mistake, instead made a representation as to a matter of fact that caused the claimant's mistake, intending the claimant to rely on that representation"

Front 7

Promise

Back 7

This is when the claimant is relying on the belief that he will get something in the future - the other two regard situations where the claimant believes he already has something.

The defendant must have made "a promise or assurance that the person claiming the estoppel will acquire a proprietary interest in specified property" "the meaning conveyed would reasonably have been understood as intended to be taken seriously as an assurance which could be relied upon"

Front 8

Promise by conduct (2 cases)

Back 8

Thorner v Major: David Thorner given money and assurances by Peter Thorner that he would inherit farm upon Peter's death

Crabb v Arun District Council: Assurance by council that Mr Crabb could use the access points on their land

Front 9

Domestic/Commercial distinction

Back 9

Achom v Lalic: "The courts must beware of accepting proprietary estoppel claims too readily in commercial contexts"

Cobbe v Yeoman's Row: Understanding that the parties were commercially aware and likely knew and did not intend that the oral contract would not be binding

Hoyl Group v Cromer Town Council: You expect to have more details of the case in a commerical case. PE claim succeeded on basis of detailed contractual discussions

Front 10

Intended to be taken seriously

Back 10

"Cobbe v Yeoman's Row: Only pre-contractual negotiations so not to be taken seriously

Front 11

"Will acquire a specified interest in particular property"

Back 11

Thorner v Major: Has to be associated with specific property

Front 12

Reliance (case + test)

Back 12

Wayling v Jones: "If you can show you would have behaved differently had you been told the promise was going to be broken, then you can show reliance"

Front 13

Detriment

Back 13

Test: Is the promise isn't performed, you'd be worse off. This links to reliance. Are you worse off than you would have been had you not relied?

Gillett v Holt

Front 14

Gillett v Holt

Back 14

"This means that the real detriment or harm fromwhich the law seeks to give protection is that which would flow from the changeof position if the assumption were deserted that led to it."

Front 15

Role of unconscionability

Back 15

Unclear but underpins doctrine and gives the courts some flexibility.

Front 16

Equity by estoppel

Back 16

LRA 2002 s116 "It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that an equity by estoppel has effect from the time the equity arises as an interest capable of binding successors in title (subject to the rules on priority)

Walden v Atkins

Front 17

How to tell the extent of the equity?

Back 17

Crabb v Arun: "the minimum equity to do justice". It should be if you remove the detriment you remove the claim

Front 18

Positive role for proportionality?

Back 18

Henry v Henry: "proportionality lies at the heart of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel and permeates its every application"

Front 19

Negative role for proportionality?

Back 19

Suggitt v Suggitt: Start from a position of enforcing the promise, and only depart if the defendant shows its disproportionate. Or is the claimants duty to show its disproportionate