Licences and Proprietary Estoppel Flashcards

Question

Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd

Answer 1

Oliver J advocated a more flexible approach than Willmott v Barber. There should be a broad approach. The courts should ascertain whether, in particular individual circumstances, it would be unconscionable for a party to be permitted to deny that which , knowingly, or unknowingly, he has allowed or encouraged another to assume to his detriment. Whereas in Willmott v Barber – it was essential if the landowner knew, Oliver thought that it was just one factor. He did go onto accept that all the factors in Willmott v Barber might be necessary in cases of acquiescence.

Answer 2

1) A representation or assurance made to the claimant 2) Reliance on it by the claimant 3) Detriment to the claimant in consequence of his reasonable reliance

Answer 3

There are three basic requirements (assurance/reliance/detriment) but these all relate together and the strength of one can vary due to the strength of each other, in the end you look at whether the three elements add up to unconscionability.

Answer 4

The fact you can establish the 3 requirements may not be enough, there may be an extra factor of unconscionability

Answer 5

1) Any representation or assurance need only be “clear enough” in the circumstances. It must be identified property. 2) HL suggested that despite having promise to the farm to someone, the farmer could probably sell at least some of that farm before his death if he needed the money for medical treatment/care in old age. 3) Reliance of PE must be reasonable. 4) The belief must relate to identified property that the landowner owns or possibly is about to own: When looking for representation/assurance they will look at statements/conducts of parties over a period of time and what might be sufficient is statements which might be unclear but to the claimant they were “clear enough”. Facts: Promise related to a farm, that cousin son would inherit farm on death of farmer. The extent of this farm could change between time promises were made and his death, he might have brought more land etc. Scope of land would change. HL regarded the promise as related to the farm as existed at death of farmer so this was fine, but it required the farm to be identified. This threw doubt on Re Basham

Answer 6

The judge took the view that a promise relating to the whole of an estate will not be sufficient unless you can interpret it relating to specific property.

Answer 7

D wanted to buy a plot of land and build a bungalow but it was too expensive. At his father’s suggestion, he built on his father’s land. The trustees under his father’s will sought possession. CA believed that although no agreement for a specific interest, the son had an expectation that he could stay for as long as he wished, this was sufficient for proprietary estoppel to arise.

Answer 8

A woman with 2 daughters from a previous relationship left a secure tenancy after having spent a considerable amount of money on that property (£15,000) to move into a house purchased by her partner in reliance on a promise of a home for life or such security as a wife would have this does not relate for specific interest. The relationship broke down and she was evicted. But this was sufficient for proprietary estoppel to arise.

Answer 9

The claimant was the owner of a piece of land which he divided into two plots. Only the northern plot had access to the highway he did not have access to the southern plot. He wanted to sell the northern plot and entered into negotiations with the defendant during which it was agreed that he would be granted a new means of access to the southern plot. This was not a binding agreement but the council erected gates where the access was intended to be. In reliance on this the claimant sold the northern plot without reserving a right of access over it. The defendants then refused to grant a right of access except on payment of £3,000. The claimant refused. CA held that he acquired a right of access by proprietary estoppel. Originally the claimants belief, that he would be granted a right of access was not mistake, he only became mistaken when the council changed their mind. The claimant believed that he would acquire rights in the immediate future. Granted rights in the immediate future.

Answer 10

A stepfather had by various statements over the years deliberately encouraged his stepdaughter’s belief that she would inherit his property on his death to induce her and her husband to look after him and his property and not to move away from the area. He did not leave his property to her. She successfully claimed it by proprietary estoppel. Acquisition of rights at a much later time (normally inheritance).

Answer 11

The parties had become friends when G was 12 and H was 38. G had been persuaded to leave school at 16 to work for H. He worked for him, at an average wage, for nearly 40 years. G, his wife and family basically devoted their lives to H: they became his surrogate family. They sold their house (thus stepping off the property ladder) to move into property owned by H on which they spent substantial sums of money. At seven times over the years H said that he intended to leave his various properties to G. However, the relationship cooled; G was summarily dismissed; and another will was written leaving the properties to a third party. G brought a claim, H was still alive. Although the promise was G would inherit of H’s death, he was awarded one of the properties while H was alive and a sum of money. CA dealth with lots of other authority – held: as long as there is a clear unambiguous promise that the claimant will get the property on death that will be sufficient, even if this is linked to the making of the will but there has to be a promise or commitment rather than just a current revocable intention.

Answer 12

An agreement subject to contract cannot give rise to proprietary estoppel because it is only a hope

Answer 13

If parties in negotiations and have not agreed on crucial matters, no proprietary estoppel can arise.

Answer 14

oral agreement for claims in a house. Held to be sufficient for PE. It was not a commercial transaction, nothing else an agreement was required. It was intended to be binding, all that was missing was the mechanics of writing.

Answer 15

Scrutton Terms of bare licence have to be stuck with. “When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the bannisters”.

Answer 16

The courts might take the view that the promise is qualified. CA suggested that a promise could in appropriate circumstances be implicitly qualified as to take into account unforeseen circumstances. A farmer promised to leave his farm to his nephew to persuade the latter to leave the farming business run by his father and brothers and join his uncle in partnership. The partnership did not work out. On the failure of the partnership, the nephew had been granted an agricultural tenancy of part of the property instead (uncles farm). Upon Uncles death he claimed ownership of the whole farm on basis of his uncles promise. Held: the promise was implicitly linked to the success of the farming partnership and therefore the nephew failed in ownership of the whole farm.

Answer 17

HL made similar point. This was a promise of leaving a farm to someone on farmers death and the HL sugguested that despite having promise to the farm to someone, the farmer could probably sell at least some of that farm before his death if he needed the money for medical treatment/care in old age. Reliance of PE must be reasonable.

Answer 18

Proprietary estoppel will not operate to correct a lack of registration under the Land Charges Act 1972 Mrs Carrick, the sister in law of Mr Carrick, purchased an unregistered leashold estate from Mr Carrick, but failed to execute any formal conveyance Mr Carrick subsequently mortgaged the estate and defaulted on payments. Held: As the agreement and sale was not recorded in the Land Charges Register, as required by the Land Charges Act 1972, the mortgage took priority over Mrs Carrick’s unregistered interest (a class C(iv) land charge). Proprietary estoppel will not operate to correct a lack of registration under the Land Charges Act 1972

Answer 19

Where clear promise, burden of proof reversed so they had to show she had not acted to her detriment. Cooke moved into the Greasley household, becoming a maid for free on the assurance that she would have a home for life following the deaths of the Greasleys No provision was made for Ms Cooke, after Ms Cooke as worked without payment for 27 years. Held: Reliance may be assumed where a claimant acts to their detriment The assurances given by the representors, Kenneth and Hedley, that the defendant could remain in the house for as long as she wished raised an equity in the defendant's favour and it was to be presumed that the defendant had acted on the faith of those assurances. The burden of proof was therefore on the plaintiffs to establish that the defendant had not acted to her detriment or her prejudice by remaining there.

Answer 20

The plaintiff and defendant were in a homosexual reationship. The plaintiff worked for the defendant for nominal expenses against his repeated promise to leave the business to him in his will. A will was made to that effect, but the defendant sold the business. The claimant sought damages. ‘(1) There must be a sufficient link between the promises relied upon and the conduct which constitutes the detriment (Grant v Edwards) in particular the passage where he equates the principles applicable in cases of constructive trust to those of proprietary estoppel. (2) The promises relied upon do not have to be the sole inducement for the conduct: it is sufficient if they are an inducement. (3) Once it has been established that promises were made, and that there has been conduct by the plaintiff of such a nature that inducement may be inferred then the burden of proof shifts to the defendants to establish that he did not rely on the promises.’

Answer 21

A father had purported to convey the fee simple of some land he owned to his son for the son to build a house on. However, due to the father’s failure to use a deed the gift of the land was ineffective. The son proceeded to build a house. This was potentially detrimental if he could not actually live on this house. Therefore, father ordered to convey fee simple of land to his son.

Answer 22

. A landowner had built a block of flats, the foundations of which trespassed on to adjoining land. An informal agreement between the neighbouring landowners permitted the foundations to remain in return for allowing the owner of the adjoining land a right of access. The agreement was in writing and at most created an equitable easement; it was not registered as a land charge and therefore was void on a sale of the property on which the flats stood. However, the purchasers had been told of the agreement and encouraged the adjoining owner when he built a garage on his land which could only be reached over their land by means of the right of access. Building claimant on his own land, with expectation of rights on his own land. This is potentially very detrimental too. CA grounds was that an easement had been established by PE. Many cases involve expenditure. But the act in reliance can be sufficiently detrimental even where there is no expenditure of money at all.

Answer 23

the acts in reliance need not involve either building work or even expenditure. Sale of part of own land without reserving access. Claimant owned two plots of land (north and southern), sold southern without reserving a right of way so ended up with land which was inaccessible unless he acquired an easement from the council. This was sufficient detrimental reliance.

Answer 24

the acts in reliance need not involve either building work or even expenditure. Staying on as unpaid housekeeper. Claimant stayed as an unpaid housekeep looking after partner and invalid sister. This was detrimental reliance because she did not look for a job or a place.

Answer 25

the acts in reliance need not involve either building work or even expenditure. Looked after step-father and his home; nature of relationship important. Step father promised step daughter all his property, in return she looked after step father and home. It was relevant in this case that it was a step father and step daughter (Obiter dicta ) Had she been his natural daughter then the acts she did would have been justified on the relationship.

Answer 26

the acts in reliance need not involve either building work or even expenditure. A woman who moved in with her lover, got pregnant and looked after the home and child failed to establish proprietary estoppel. What she did was due to the relationship not mistaken belief.

Answer 27

the acts in reliance need not involve either building work or even expenditure . Gave up spare time at evenings and weekends to care for landowner and do gardening. Here there was no such relationship. His claim succeeded.

Answer 28

the acts in reliance need not involve either building work or even expenditure. Gave up a secure tenancy, having spent a considerable amount of money on that property and moved in with partner and spent a further significant amount of money on that property. Relationship between parties, but claim succeeded.

Answer 29

the acts in reliance need not involve either building work or even expenditure. Helping out in businesses for pocket money. This was sufficient.

Answer 30

the acts in reliance need not involve either building work or even expenditure. Promise inheriting property on death, claimant left school at 16 and worked for landowner. In this case he had been paid an average wage and received other benefits as well. CA took view that claimant and wife had “…had deprived themselves of the opportunity of trying to better themselves in other ways”, they devoted their working and social lives to the landowner so they had given up other opportunities.

Answer 31

the acts in reliance need not involve either building work or even expenditure Claimant worked on her parent’s farm for a low wage in the expectation of inheriting it; it was crucial that she had to show that she could work elsewhere at a better job, not necessarily at a higher wage, there could be other relevant factors. she could have worked elsewhere for higher wages, less hours and with better working relationships. CA regarded it as essential that the claimant show that she could have done better.

Answer 32

In extreme cases the acts in reliance may be quite minimal. . The claimant lived in a house owned by man with whom she had had a relationship in the past. He had told her that the house was hers. In reliance she spent about £230 on redecoration and more money on furnishings. In real terms this was not a significant amount of money but this was a large amount of her savings and she was awarded the fee simple of the property. In extreme cases the potential detriment might be quite minimal.

Answer 33

The CA looked at acts in reliance carried out by claimant but balanced these against the benefits to the parties from living together. They concluded on the facts that sufficient detriment had been established. But this case, along with comments in earlier case in Sledmore v Dalby suggests that where the claimant has received sufficient benefit before going to court. This benefit may exhaust the benefit so PE will not be established. This suggestion only came from lord justice hobhouse, majority took view that balance between detriment and reliance would be taken into account at a later stage when deciding the appropriate remedy. No clear case where having received sufficient there was no PE but it is a possibility.

Answer 34

Two actions relating to 3 related leases of shop premises. The first action concerned a lease (A) which had been granted for 28 years with an option to renew for a further 14 years. This option had not been registered as a land charge and it had been defeated on a sale of the freehold. The present tenants, in a belief that the option was valid had carried out extensive work on the premises including the installation of a lift in reliance. The landlords did not know at the time of the work that the option was invalid. The presence of a representative of theirs at a site meeting was considered to be acquiescence not encouragement. Because they did not know of their rights, they could not speak out so no PE. The second action concerned two leases duration of which was linked to the first lease (A). Landlord offered leases on validity of A, this was held to encourage a belief that the option was valid. Landlords also actively persuaded the claimant to take the third lease so because of this the lack of knowledge was irrelevant. One (B) had been granted shortly after A and was granted for 42 years but with a right for the landlord to determine it after 28 years should the option in lease A not be exercised. The tenant then took a further lease (C) of adjoining premises some years later for a term of 14 years with an option to renew for 14 years should the option in lease A be exercised. Both B and C were granted after the option in A was rendered invalid. Landowner encouraged the mistaken belief and reliance.

Answer 35

H owned a plot of land which he sold for building. He purported to grant to P a right of way over adjoining land owned jointly by himself and his W. Grant ineffective because W not a party. W believed the right of way had been granted, her actions in drewing it on the conveyancing plan helped create the mistaken belief and then stood by while the building went ahead. She did not know of the belief, she had acted positively. Landowner created the mistaken belief.

Answer 36

landowner had encouraged the mistaken belief of the claimant, the council had encouraged the claimants belief that he had a right of access to the rear of his land, in reliance he built a garage and drive to which he could only access over the councils land. CA held that it was enough the council knew what the claimant intended to do. Council did not have to know that the claimant WAS acting in reliance, it was enough that they knew what the claimant intended to do

Answer 37

where there is an assurance it may only be necessary to show the actual fact of reliance. commented on situation of an “express assurance” positive action, and his view was where assurance was intended to be taken seriously or is reasonably understood to be reasonably taken seriously, all that matters is the fact of reliance, the landowner need not know of the actual reliance or foreseen the actual reliance.

Answer 38

Defendant council had granted a lease of the basement of a building it owned to the claimant to convert into a flat. At the time the lease was granted there was internal access to the basement. The original intention was to block this up and create a new door with access through a car park. The plan was then revised: access was to be through conversion of an existing fire door and through the garden of the property. The revised plan was discussed with the council, which later urged the claimant to complete the works as soon as possible. The claim was for a right of way through the garden. Held that meetings and corrospondence between council and claimant encouraged her belief in right of way in the garden and the work carried out by the claimant was clearly only consistent with having this right of way. On facts of the case, there was not only the conversion but communication between landowner and claimant. But the comments of CA suggest in an appropriate case, acts done without any prior communication is sufficient. Issue for CA was what degree of knowledge was required of claimant’s mistaken belief and acts done in reliance. CA held that actual knowledge of the belief and the reliance was unnecessary. It is enough that the claimant was acting to the knowledge of the landowner in a way that was only consistent with the claimant believing he has a right. Some form of constructive knowledge is sufficient, the landowner ought to have realised a mistaken belief.

Answer 39

Promise that claimant would inherit all the various properties. When case was brought the landowner was still alive, the court order was that the claimant receive ownership of one of the farms immediately, along with a cash sum. Claimant received property earlier than expected but had no rights in relation to landowners other property. This approach will not work on facts of Re Basham (where one house) attempts give away the house.

Answer 40

. The claimant had spent money on repairs and improvements to her mother’s house in the belief that she could remain there for life. The parties were persuaded to agree to the grant of a long lease at a low rent with a restriction on the right to assign. (N.B. Campbell v Griffin [2001] EWCA Civ 990, CA.) Under legislation enforced, a proprietary interest would have given her a life interest and a right to sell the property. She did not believe that she would have control over the property just that she could live there. Same effect that she could live there for rest of life but slightly different interest to avoid giving her more than expected. Courts do not like life interests because life interests will bring TOLATA and administrative inconvenience.

Answer 41

The landowner had led her brother and his wife to believe they had a home for life in the house in which she lived. They spent £700 on the house. The parties fell out. The claimants got the return of their expenditure of £700 with a right to remain until it was repaid. The claimants spent £700 in belief for home in life, compensation award was £700. Return of expenditure.

Answer 42

. The claimant expected to receive the hotel. He received the value of the hotel he expected to inherit. Instead, he received the value of that hotel

Answer 43

The property was subject to mortgages and valueless in the hands of the landowner. Compensation cannot be more than the value of the property to the landowner. Compensation was zero. Property was mortgaged so the value was zero.

Answer 44

essential requirement was that there should be proportionality between the expectation and the detriment. The claimant had cared for an old lady. He had run errands, help her dress, wash etc, ensured she had food and drink, done the gardening and stayed overnight. This was done in the expectation of inheriting her house and furniture worth £435,000. He was awarded £200,000. Value of compensation was the acts in reliance. Value of acts in reliance was not as clear in Dodsworth v Dodsworth. Here the claimant looked after an elderly woman so not easy to give a figure for reliance, probably why courts did not award compensation in earlier cases because too difficult to calculate. But the CA awarded compensation. To award house or value would be out of proportionate for the detriment occurred. Instead he was awarded sum of £200,000 which was roughly the value of services he provided her.

Answer 45

To put the claimant in the position she was in before she acted in reliance: lost expenditure increased to take account of inflation. Woman gave up rented property to move in with partner then spent money on his property. The compensation was calculated on basis of what she would have had if she had not relied of the representation, taking into account inflation.

Answer 46

awarded injunction to prevent landowners heir evict the claimant. It does not clarify rights of claimant or resolve the issue.

Answer 47

The expectation is the maximum

Answer 48

principle of proportionality (between remedy and detriment) Need for proportionality in compensation decisions.

Answer 49

– Lewison picked up on something Lord Walker said in Jennings v Rice. Walker said if you have something faring short of a contract then the expectation will be given effect to, but in other cases the expectation is a starting point but might not be forced. sliding scale by which the clearer the expectation, the greater the detriment and the longer the passage of time during which the expectation was reasonably held, the greater would be the weight that should be given to the expectation

Answer 50

Financial position of both claimant and landowner matters. Landowner told his mistress that house was hers, she spent £230 redecorating it, one of factors used by judge to award her the fee simple was that she had little savings and therefore if in the future the house needed repairs she would have to take out a loan and she would find it easier to get a loan if she could get security of the property.

Answer 51

Benefit already received The son-in-law of the landowner had spent money on improvements to the property in the expectation of rent-free accommodation for life. He had already lived there rent free for 18 years. CA said that they would make good his expectations as could be fairly done between the parties, they looked at present position of both parties. Son-in-law had lived rent free for 18 years he was not in employment so could afford to rent somewhere and in fact because he had a girlfriend, he only stayed at property two days a week. In contrast the landowner suffered financial hardship and she needed this property. CA held: no remedy on the grounds the claimant had already received sufficient benefit and it would not be unconscionable in circumstances for landowner to enforce her rights.

Answer 52

Council having led landowner believe he has access on highway then refused unless he paid significant sum. CA would have ordered payment for the right of access expect for the fact that the councils conduct in refusing to grant access caused loss to the claimant. Therefore, right of access was brough free of charge.

Answer 53

In earlier proceedings the claimants had been granted an equitable licence for life. Since then their conduct in relation to the landowner had been appalling. Did this lead them to lose their right? It was said that bad behaviour could not lead them to lose a right they had already been granted, but had there been bad behaviour before they went to court the first time they might not have been granted a remedy, on basis that you must come to equity “with clean hands”.

Answer 54

claimant expected to inherit parents farm, view of court that expectation of inheriting was on condition of staying and working on farm. Therefore, CA said it needs to be asked whether she has fulfilled her part of the bargain. In fact she left the farm for awhile, therefore court took the view that it was not inequitable for the parties to go back on their expectation at least on part.

Answer 55

it was said that an equity which effectively gives rise to a family interest is capable of being overreached. In circumstances where PE gives rise to a share in the beneficial ownership it should be capable of being overreached.

Answer 56

Only purchaser of express notice will be bound.

Answer 57

The rights of a claimant in the property before a court order are not precisely clear. There are numerous dicta to the effect that he has an “equity” in property from the moment of reliance (e.g. Crabb). There is some authority that this equity is a right in the property. Landowner only intends for claimant to acquire rights once landowner is dead, not before. If the effect of PE is that the claimant gets some kind of equity in the property from the moment of his detrimental reliance this would have the effect of restricting what the landowner can do with his property, thus landowner might not be able to sell it to someone else, cannot give it away as this goes against the promise. If landowner promises to leave ALL assets to claimant, arguably the landowner never intends that he cannot do what he wants during his lifetime. In the context of an expectation of inheriting property this seems to impose restrictions on the landowner’s freedom to use his property in his lifetime: see the floating trust in Re Basham

Answer 58

It seems that a claimant will acquire a right to go to court from the moment he acted in reliance on an expectation, and any interest awarded by the court will relate back to that date. (Voyce v Voyce) Re Basham where it was said that a species of constructive trust arises even before death. The judge seemed to be envisaging the type of floating trust that may arise in mutual wills cases. floating obligation or constructive trust, suspended during the lifetime of the survivor, which crystallises on the property on his death.

Licences and Proprietary Estoppel Flashcards

(82 cards)