Property Law Second Term - ESTOPPEL Flashcards Preview

Law First Year > Property Law Second Term - ESTOPPEL > Flashcards

Flashcards in Property Law Second Term - ESTOPPEL Deck (57):
1

Who made the test more flexible?

Oliver J in Taylor Fashions v LV Trustees

1

Ratio in Wayling v Jones

'Sufficient link' between assurance and detriment. Burden on D to show no reliance.

1

Taylor v Dickens on unconscionable

Difficult for change of will because free to do so

1

What are the two possible outcomes of proprietary estoppel?

B can enjoy his right that he has been denied, or the court can award a claim/remedy that is not more than B was assured

1

What if the land is unregistered for an equity by estoppel?

Estoppels are not a land charge (see s.2(4) LCA) so no need for registration

2

Greasley v Cooke

Care for partner's relatives

2

Wayling v Jones

Homosexual

2

What is the primary outcome difference between CT and PE?

CT is a claim, but PE is discretionary

3

What did Law Com No.278 say?

Courts should strictly enforce declarations of trust freely and fairly made

4

Orgee v Orgee on outcome

B gets no more than he was promised

5

What did Hopkins argue about the outcome of PE?

Unconscionability was something borne in mind when considering the other requirements, rather than separate

6

Campbell v Griffin

Elderly landlords

8

Gillett v Holt on detriment

Lost opportunity - EVEN IF A BENEFIT TO B

10

From what case does the test come?

Taylor Fashions v LV Trustees

10

Who suggested unconscionability was something borne in mind when considering the other requirements, rather than separate?

Hopkins

11

Crabb v Arun DC

Pre-contractual negotiations can suggest assurance

12

What precedent shows how assurance needs to relate to reasonably identifiable land?

Thorner

12

what law com report said Courts should strictly enforce declarations of trust freely and fairly made

Law Com No.278

13

What are the three requirements for an assurance under estoppel

Needs to be clear, must relate to reasonably identifiable land and there needs to be reasonable belief by B

14

'Reasonably have been understood as intended to be taken seriously as an assurance which could be relied upon'

Lord Hoffmann, Thorner

16

In a family context, what is the precedent for an assurance?

General enough, Thorner v Major

16

Gillett v Holt on unconscionable

Can argue for change of will if repeated often (40 years)

17

Cobbe and Thorner on unconscionable

Insufficient on its own

18

Slater v Richardson

A was wholly unaware - if not reasonably expected to know, hard to prove PE

19

What case stated that an equity is established once the elements of a proprietary estoppel are established

Jennings v Rice

20

Care for partner's relatives

Greasley v Cooke

21

Clarke v Meadus

Used PE to override Goodman v Gallant

22

Who gave the test for reasonable belief in assurance in Thorner?

Lord Hoffmann

24

Taylor v Dickens on detriment

Detriment and unconscionability insufficient on its own

26

Greasley v Cooke ratio

Infer reliance from clear assurance and detriment

28

Henry v Henry

Test of unconscionability needs to be considered afresh in relation to the position of the third party

30

Who rejected the idea that the starting point is A is under a duty to B unless it is disproportionate as too unprincipled?

Mee

30

What three ways does Pawlowski challenge clarke v meadus?

Need s.53(1)(b) for variation, s.53(1)(c) to move beneficial interest (scott in Cobbe on contradict the statute) and Stack involved no express declaration

31

How does Neuberger argue Scott was wrong in Cobbe on contradicting?

PE is not precluded by s.2 LP(MP)A because PE deals with unconscionability, not an attempt to enforce the contract

32

What did Mee argue about the outcome of PE?

Rejected the idea that the starting point is A is under a duty to B unless it is disproportionate as too unprincipled

34

Cobbe v Yeoman's on Crabb v Arun

Suggests it may have been an exception

35

What section of what section identifies 'equity by estoppel' binds third parties?

S.116 LRA

35

What did Bright and McFarlane argue about the outcome?

A's duty should be proportionate to B's detriment, aimed at protecting B's relianc

36

What case shows that a claim will still succeed in PE even if no s.2 LP(MP)A?

Kinane v Mackie-Conteh

38

What did Lord Scott say in Cobbe v Yeoman's Row on needing a s.2 LP(MP)A?

'Equity can surely not contradict the statute'

39

Dual motive doesn't remove reliance

Campbell v Griffin

40

What case used PE to override Goodman v Gallant?

Clarke v Meadus

41

Wayling v Jones on unconscionable

V bullied D - can't use PE if acted unconscionably

43

Who argued that the justification for formalities not applying is because estoppel is a double assurance - a right even without formalities

Dixon

44

Thorner v Major

Torn up will

45

What are the requirements for estoppel?

Assurance, reliance, detriment and unconscionable

46

Homosexual

Wayling v Jones

47

Jennings v Rice on detriment

Need not relate to land

48

Jennings v Rice on making out a PE claim

an equity is established once the elements of a proprietary estoppel are established

49

What did Dixon argue about the outcome of PE?

The justification for formalities not applying is because estoppel is a double assurance - a right even without formalities

51

Jennings v Rice on outcome

A is not always required to honour the exact promise made

52

Orgee v Orgee

No reliance when detriment is irrespective of A's conduct (e.g. paying rent)

53

Why does Pawlowski suggest Clarke v Meadus was perhaps wrongly decided?

Followed Stack, but Stack involved no express declaration of a trust

54

In a commercial context, what is the precedent for an assurance?

More specific needed, Cobbe v Yeoman's Row

55

Ratio in Campbell v Griffin

Dual motive doesn't remove reliance

56

What do you need to do to protect the equity by estoppel ideally in registered land?

Register it as a notice if registered land

57

Thorner v Major, Lord Hoffmann on reasonable belief in assurance

'Reasonably have been understood as intended to be taken seriously as an assurance which could be relied upon'