Proprietary Estoppel

Front 1

DEFINITION

Back 1

the law of proprietary estoppel operates where the owner of an estate in land has expressly or impliedly given some informal assurance respecting present or future rights in that land.

Front 2

USE BY COURTS (1)

Back 2

‘mitigate the rigours of strict law,’

Front 3

USE BY COURTS (2)

Back 3

‘prevent a person from insisting on his strict legal rights when it would be inequitable for him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties’.

Front 4

NATURE

Back 4

Lord Scott in Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd 2008 - equity will intervene to prevent unconscionable denial of rights and proprietary estoppel will usually come into existence if the right claimed is of a proprietary nature.

Front 5

ELEMENTS

Back 5

A successful claim of proprietary estoppel is reliant upon the demonstration of three elements; representation, reliance and detriment.

Front 6

GENERAL RULE (Nature)

Back 6

It is generally thought that an estoppel cannot give rise to a cause of action; it is said to act as a shield rather than a sword (Crabb v Arun DC 1976).

Front 7

DEFENCE

Back 7

Proprietary estoppel is not limited in to providing a defence to action by a landowner who seeks to enforce his strict rights against someone who has been promised a right in the land.

Front 8

ACTION

Back 8

Estoppel has been used to enable to claim a right in the land - exemplified in Mathura v Mathura 1994, where an action for possession by a landowner was met by a successful plea of estoppel by the person in physical possession of the property.

Front 9

OLD LAW

Back 9

The origins of proprietary estoppel lie in the judgment of Fry J in Willmott vBarber 1880 which established a clear framework for determining thepossibility of a successful plea of proprietary estoppel.

Front 10

OLD LAW (1)

Back 10

The claimant must havemade a mistake to his rights and must have expended money or done some act becauseof the mistake.

Front 11

OLD LAW (2)

Back 11

The owner must be aware of his right, be aware of the claimant’s mistake and must have encouraged the claimant’s expenditure, eitherdirectly or by not asserting his rights.

Front 12

NEW LAW

Back 12

Following Willmott v Barber 1880, Oliver J declared in Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd 1982 that the requirements should not be seen as strict rules.

Front 13

NEW LAW (1)

Back 13

Assurance by the landowner as to the claimant’s position in relation to the land

Front 14

NEW LAW (2)

Back 14

Reliance on that assurance by the claimant

Front 15

NEW LAW (3)

Back 15

Detriment by the claimantas a result of relying on the assurance.

Front 16

GENERAL APPROACH (Origin)

Back 16

Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd 2008 adopts Oliver J’s more general approach seen through the analysis in Thorner v Major 2009. Lord Scott in Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd 2008 attempted to move away from the Gillett flexible analysis in order to limit the extent of estoppel.

Front 17

SATISFYING THE EQUITY

Back 17

The court has had wide discretion + may grant an interest inland or even an estate in land

Front 18

VITAL ROLE

Back 18

Concept of unconscionability plays a vital role in thelaw of PE yet is unidentifiable as compared toassurance, reliance + detriment

Front 19

PRECONDITIONS

Back 19

Preconditions for the application of PE are metif the representee is left uncoscionablydisadvantged by her reliance on the relevantassurance of entitlement

Front 20

ROBERT'S VIEW

Back 20

Robert Walker LJ endorsed the view that it is the detrimental reliance on the representee's assurance that makes therepresentation irrevocable, so that any attempt thereafter torevoke it by the representee is unconscionable

Front 21

PRIVY COUNCIL

Back 21

Despite this, the Privy Council decision in A-G of Hong Kong v Humphrey's Estate Ltd 1987 disprovesthis analysis as estoppel could not exist because it was not uncionsibale for the representor to rely on thelack of formality

Front 22

PRIVY COUNCIL (INDEPENDENCE)

Back 22

Although there is no well-defined anwer to this detable, the recentcase of Kinane v Mackie-Conteh 2005 supports the view that theconcept of unconscionability is more than a function ofassurance, reliance and detriment

Front 23

CLARITY(1)

Back 23

Clarity as to what it isthat the object of the estoppel is to be estopped fromdenying or asserting

Front 24

CLARITY(2)

Back 24

To clarify as to the interest in the property in question that that denial would otherwise defeat