Proprietary Estoppel

Front 1

Assurances must relate to an interest in land.

Back 1

Cobbe

Hint 1

There had been an oral agreement between a company and Cobbe that a block of flats owned by the company would be demolished and Cobbe would apply for residential planning permission. The company would share equally in profits over £24mn. After the planning permission had been obtained, the company demanded more money.

Result - no proprietary estoppel.

Assurance must relate to some proprietary right. Cobbe had not been assured of any proprietary right. Futhermore, there was no intention to create legal relations - parties were commercial clients, would have known.

Front 2

Assurances are context-sensitive; a continuing pattern of conduct may suffice

Back 2

Thorner v Major

Hint 2

Farmer (T) worked on his father's cousin's (P) farm for 30 years without pay. P had indicated that T would inherit the farm, and T had acted in reliance upon this indication. P left no will.

Result - T successful in establishing proprietary estoppel HL overturned the decision of CA and re-established the decision of the trial judge.

The evidence demonstrated a continuing pattern of conduct sufficient to amount to an assurance. The assurances were rather obscure and implicit but they were indicative enough to convey an objective intention that T would have the farm. Terms (representations) are context-specific.

N.B. Lord Scott's dissent - wanted to analyse the case as an example of a constructive trust.

Front 3

Detriment need not consist of financial expenditure; once a promisee has relied upon an assurance to his detriment, it is binding in equity.

Back 3

Gillett v Holt

Hint 3

Facts - G spent his working life working for H. H made repeated assurances over many years that G would succeed to his farming business, including the farmhouse. The relationship deteriorated and H sacked G, altering his will to benefit a third party instead.

Result - Estoppel granted.

Minimum equity was for G to transfer freehold in the farmhouse to H, along with a sufficient sum to compensate for the loss of the farming business.

Ratio - G relied on the assurances to his detriment, and H was aware. promises not irrevocable by their own nature: it was G's subsequent detrimental reliance that made them so. Once a promisee has acted upon the promise to his detriment, it is binding in equity.

Front 4

Appropriate remedies - minimum equity required to do justice. Reliance interest.

Back 4

Jennings v Rice

Hint 4

Gardener worked for woman for thirty years, was initially paid but this ceased after she started running out of money and she assured him he will be alright and 'this will all be yours one day'. She died intestate. X argued that he should either get the value of the house or of the whole estate.

Awarded less than half the value of the house.

Any more would have been out of all proportion to payment he would have charged for his work.

Front 5

Estoppel by acquiescence. Unconscionable to retract assurance after detrimental reliance.

Back 5

Pascoe v Turner

Hint 5

Woman (Turner) moved in with man (Pascoe), and lived as if married. T moved into another house bought by P. P left for another woman, but told T that the house and its contents were hers. She spent a quarter of her capital improving the property. P later gave T two months to vacate the premises.

Result - T successful - gained fee simple estate.

Ration - P made assurance of proprietary interest, and acquiesced in the face of her detrimental reliance

DR = unconscionable to retract

"If she is granted a license, such a license cannot be registered as a land charge, so that she may find herself ousted by a purchaser for value without notice... [T]he equity to which the facts in this case give rise can only be satisfied by compelling the plaintiff to give effect to his promise and her expectations."

Front 6

A mere change of position is not sufficient: there must be detriment

Back 6

Coombes v Smith

Hint 6

An affair: man (S) told woman (C) he wanted them to live together. He bought a house, she got pregnant, gave up her job, left husband and moved in. S didn't, but did give financial support. Same continued at a second house. C improved the house but S didn't put her on the deed despite two requests. When the relationship came to an end he offered compensation.

Result - no proprietary estoppel. P v T distinguished.

Ratio - (i) The parties had never discussed what would happen if the relationship ended; (ii) A belief that she would always be provided for was not sufficient, and; (iii) her actions in leaving her husband, job and improving the house didn't amount to detriment, although she did change her position in reliance on her assumptions.

Front 7

Paradigm case of proprietary estoppel - knowledgeable acquiescence sufficient

Back 7

Inwards v Baker

Hint 7

Elderly man encouraged son to build a bungalow on his land, telling him that once built, the bungalow would be available for him to use as long as he wished. Son constructed bungalow and lived there fore 30 years. Father died, son's half-brothers sought possession.

However, a representation had been made, and relied upon to the son's detriment - he had spent money improving the land, and under his own labour.

Front 8

Remedy to be awarded is the minimum equity needed to do justice. An equitable remedy cannot be allowed to produce an unjust result

Back 8

Sledmore v Dalby

Hint 8

Mother and father grant their daughter and her husband a joint tenancy in the house. Father had communicated an intention to give the young could the house. Father and daughter died. Later, widow has financial problems - tries to seek possession.

She succeeds. The minimum required to do justice to the husband had expired, and now the widow was in dire need but the husband was not.

The interests of the parties must be balanced - an equitable remedy cannot be allowed to produce an unjust result (per Lord Hobhouse).