Proprietary Estoppel

Front 1

Wormall v Wormall

Back 1

Shield: action in trespass by the landlord, provided that the landowner had assured the ‘trespasser’ that they could enjoy the right now being denied

Front 2

Lester v Hardy

Back 2

Shield: action in nuisance by the landlord

Front 3

Crabb v Arun DC

Back 3

Sword: Generate a new property interest in favour of a claimant who has relied on an assurance by a landlord that they will be given some right or privilege over the land

Front 4

Orgee v Orgee

Back 4

But a court of equity will rarely go beyond the maximum the claimant was informally promised.

Front 5

Jennings v Rice

Back 5

Apart from Orgee v Orgee rule, the court will also seek to do that which remedies the unconscionability suffered by the claimant

Front 6

Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees

Back 6

Conditions are: Assurance, reliance and detriment in circumstances in which it would be unconscionable to deny a remedy to the claimant; emphasis shifted away from an examination of the landowner's actions to that of the behaviour of the claimant

Front 7

Thorner v Major

Back 7

But a holistic approach should be taken and the four features are not to be seen as isolated.

Front 8

Willmott v Barber

Back 8

Old test: 'five probanda' of proprietary estoppel (represents the 'acquiescence' strand of cases put forward by McFarlane)

-mistake as to legal rights over land belonging to another

- true landowner must know of claimant’s mistaken belief

-claimant must have expended money or carried out some action on the faith of the mistaken belief

-landowner must have encouraged the expenditure by the claimant, either directly, or by abstaining from enforcing their legal rights and the owner of the land over which the right is claimed must know of the existence of their own rights

-these are inconsistent with the alleged rights of the claimant.

Front 9

Thorner v Major

Back 9

Assurance must be

-'clear enough', though context-dependent

-Express and specific but not necessarily so

-Relate to or be about some reasonably identifiable land, though exact scope of land need not be certain (over time some land is sold and other purchased) as long as it is reasonably clear which land the assurance relates to at the time the claim of estoppel falls to be considered

Front 10

Ramsden v Dyson

Back 10

Even silence can constitute an assurance

Front 11

Whittaker v Kinnear

Back 11

'family' disputes and 'commercial' disputes need not be approached in the same way

-Specificity of assurance may depend on whether it is in a domestic (thorner) or commercial context (cobbe)

Front 12

Achom v Lalic

Back 12

The courts must beware of accepting proprietary claims too readily in commercial contexts

Front 13

Creasey v Sole

Back 13

However, even in a family context, vague and ill-defined words still cannot amount to an assurance

Front 14

Shirt v Shirt

Back 14

If parties' relationships are complex, there may be no adequate assurance found even in typical family disputes

Front 15

Ramsden v Dyson

Back 15

Assurance can be implied where the landowner refrains from preventing the claimant using his land in a particular way (acquiescence strand?)

Front 16

Murphy v Burrows

Back 16

If parties' relationship have a fluid and uncertain nature, the assurances might not give rise to estoppels as it is unclear whether they were given, or reasonably understood, as assurances about property.

Front 17

JT Developments v Quinn

Back 17

An assurance can arise even if there was clearly no intention to create binding obligations between the parties at all, such as where parties had attempted to negotiate a contract governing use of land but had failed.

Front 18

Kinane v Alimany Mackie-Conteh

Back 18

A written, though unenforceable, agreement can constitute the requisite assurance, even if the parties did not give the agreement legal effect through their own fault.

-borrower had agreed by letter to charge his land as security for a loan, but written instrument did not meet the formality requirements of s2 of the LP(MP)A 1989 as both borrower and lender did not sign it.

Front 19

Cobbe v Yeoman's Row

Back 19

But if both parties knew that they should have entered into an enforceable contract if they wanted to create a binding agreement and had chosen not to, then the claim of estoppel would likely fail

Front 20

Herbert v Doyle

Back 20

Or had intended that further formalities would follow, then the claim of estoppel would likely fail

Front 21

Thorner v Major

Back 21

Assurance can succeed provided that the claimant reasonably believes that an assurance has been made, even if the landowner did not intend to make an assurance by words or deeds.

Front 22

Slater v Richardson

Back 22

But if the landowner know nothing and could not reasonably be expected to know of the claimant's belief that he has been promised some right in or over the land, and the landowner has done nothing to encourage the claimant's belief, then it is going to be difficult to establish an estoppel.

Front 23

Creasey v Sole

Back 23

A claim of estoppel must be approached with scepticism when the only evidence of an assurance is the uncorroborated evidence of the claimant.

Front 24

Thorner v Major

Back 24

Sufficient if claimant reasonably relies on the assurance, even if the landowner did not intend that he should rely so

Front 25

Greasley v Cooke

Back 25

If clear assurance has been made and detriment has been suffered, it is permissible to assume that reliance has occurred.

Front 26

Wayling v Jones

Back 26

There only needs to be a 'sufficient link' between the assurance made and the detriment incurred by the plaintiff, the existence of which would throw the burden of proof onto the defendant to show that they had in fact been no reliance

Front 27

Orgee v Orgee

Back 27

When plaintiff's alleged detriment was ordinary expenses that would normally have been incurred in any event, then there is no reliance

Front 28

Campbell v Griffin

Back 28

But there can still be reliance where the claimant admitted that he would have assisted the landlords out of ordinary human compassion rather than in clear reliance on their promises; a dual motive does not thereby diminish the fact that reliance has occurred.

Front 29

Chun v Ho

Back 29

Where the claimant's actions in giving up her career and establishing a life with the landowner to the disgust of her family could not be explained solely on the basis of her love on him

Front 30

Bradbury v Burkinshaw

Back 30

Parties' failed attempts to regulate formally the claimant's use of land, which came to nothing, did not mean that the claimant had ceased to reply on the informal assurances.

-Detriment is highly fact-sensitive and is not to be discounted because of family or emotional ties between the claimant and landowner that might otherwise explain a course of action

Front 31

Kinane v Alimany Mackie-Conteh

Back 31

Spending money on land or advancing money to the landowner is detriment.

Front 32

Campbell v Griffin

Back 32

Physically improving the land in some way or devoting time and care to the needs of the landowner is detriment.

Front 33

Lloyd v Dugdale

Back 33

Forsaking some other opportunity is detriment.

Front 34

Suggitt v Suggitt

Back 34

Positioning your entire life on the faith that the land might one day be yours is detriment.

Front 35

Jennings v Rice

Back 35

Detriment does not have to relate to land, it can include spending money in other ways on the faith of an assurance that you would have somewhere to live or even inheritance to enjoy

Front 36

Gillett v Holt

Back 36

Where a claimant can be thought of having done rather well out of his relationship with the landowner as the former now owned valuable shares in the farm company and held property in his own right, as long as there were lost opportunities, there can still be detriment

Front 37

Bradbury v Burkinshaw

Back 37

Occupation of the land, though beneficial, may not outweigh the detrimental reliance.

Front 38

Taylor v Dickens

Back 38

But detriment itself, no matter how extensive, is not enough.

-If there was no assurance that the deceased would never change her will and there is no enforceable assurance, it does not matter if the plaintiff works for many years in the expectation he would inherit from the deceased

Front 39

Lloyd v Dugdale

Back 39

Detriment must be incurred by the person to whom the assurance is made; there is no concept of 'derivative detriment'

-in this case Mr Dugdale had to prove that the detriment was incurred by him personally and not on behalf of his company

Front 40

Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees

Back 40

Unconscionability is the very essence of a proprietary estoppel claim

Front 41

Hopper v Hopper

Back 41

Unconscionability is a fluid concept and much depends on the facts of each case.

-It means simply whether in all of the circumstances the landowner can resile from the assurance he has given and on which the claimant has relied to detriment, but even if the claimant has relied to detriment on an assurance there can be no proprietary estoppel claim without unconscionability.

Front 42

Canty v Broad

Back 42

An oral agreement deliberately made 'subject to contract' cannot be enforced for want of unconscionability

Front 43

Ravenocean v Gardner

Back 43

A void executory contract cannot be enforced for want of unconscionability

Front 44

Uglow v Uglow

Back 44

A conditional assurance, of which the conditions are not fulfilled, cannot be enforced for want of unconscionability

Front 45

Gillett v Holt

Back 45

Unconscionability may exist if the assurance if withdrawn after it is repeated so often that no one could doubt that the landowner meant what they said about the destination of their property on their death

-In this case, Mr Holt had promised Mr Gillett over a 40-year-old period that he would be the beneficiary of Mr Holt's will, so when the will was changed to exclude Mr Gillett, and there was unconscionability established

Front 46

Wayling v Jones

Back 46

If he claimant engages in bullying, he has behaved unconscionably and no amount of assurance, reliance and detriment is going to be enough to establish estoppel

-he who wants equity must behave equitably

Front 47

Murphy v Rayner

Back 47

Undue influence by the claimant is unconscionable behaviour that will deny the claimant a proprietary estoppel claim.

Front 48

Walden v Atkins

Back 48

An 'inchoate equity', under s16 of the LRA 2002, is a property right but does not give one any specific right until it is enforced.

-Court in this case held that it was a property right which was already transferred to the trustee in bankruptcy with all the other property rights

Front 49

Crabb v Arun DC

Back 49

Court should do at least the minimum to achieve justice between the parties to 'satsify' the equity in any manner that is appropriate to the case before it

-Apart from Orgee v Orgee and Jennings v Rice rules.

Front 50

Bradbury v Burkinshaw

Back 50

Remedy might need to be 'proportionate'

Front 51

Henry v Henry

Back 51

'Proportionality lies at the heart of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel and permeates its every application'.

Front 52

Thorner v Major

Back 52

Claimant got the whole farm.

Front 53

Gillett v Holt

Back 53

Claimant got part of the farm and lump sum.

Front 54

Jennings v Rice

Back 54

Claimant only got compensation in lieu of proprietary interests.