proprietary estoppel Flashcards
What is the concept of proprietary estoppel?
The concept of proprietary estoppel is to provide a person with rights in land that they were led to believe they had by another party.
where denying said rights would be unjust or inequitable.
It is a situation where a promise is made, which is intended to bind and be acted upon.
What is the traditional method for determining proprietary estoppel?
Willmott v Barber
the so-called ‘five probanda’
What is the modern test?
the modern test is one of assurance, reliance and detriment (Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees (1982).
A proprietary estoppel claim arises when the following conditions are met:
- A promise is made to the claimant.
- The promise was believed and relied upon by the claimant; and
- Reliance on the promise has caused the claimant to suffer detriment
To these factors can be added a general requirement of unconscionability (Sledmore v Dalby (1996)).
What is unconscionability?
state the supporting case
Unconscionability is anything so manifestly unfair, unequal or unjust that it goes against good conscience.
(Sledmore v Dalby (1996)).
What is proprietary estoppel?
Proprietary estoppel is a means of creating a proprietary interest in land in the absence of following the correct formalities set out in s.2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
What does Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 require?
requires contracts which either transfer or create an estate or interest in land to
1) be made in writing,
2) signed by the parties (or on their behalf) and
3) incorporate all the express terms.
what trusts do not need to comply with Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
Clearly such informal agreements arising under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel do not comply with these requirements.
As well as, ‘implied, resulting and constructive trusts’ are exempt from the formality requirements.
NAME THE CASE
the House of Lords considered an oral agreement for the sale of land. The agreement had been withdrawn after Cobbe had carried out extensive, costly investigations and had acquired planning permission.
The court held that since the agreement had not been completed, there was no basis for either proprietary estoppel or a constructive trust.
In Yeoman’s Row v Cobbe
NAME THE CASE
Owner of land D and developer C entered into a non-binding oral agreement that D was to sell land to C at a certain price upon C obtaining planning permission
C obtained planning permission at considerable time and cost
D then sought to renegotiate the terms, seeking for an increase in price.
Promissory estoppel is unlikely to arise from promises made during commercial negotiations prior to contract formation
Cobbe v Yeomans Row Management Ltd
Assurance needs to be a clear and unambiguous assurance with sufficient clarity…
EXPLAIN
a) An assurance or representation occurs when the owner of land by words or conduct leads the claimant to expect that he will enjoy some entitlement in the land
b) This promise can look similar to the typical statement that, “one day, all this will be yours” which is usually in relation to a property, land or business.
c) The promise must be clear and be more than a statement of current intention. Evidence of such a promise is desirable.
The promise was believed and relied upon by the claimant.
EXPLAIN
a) The Courts will be looking to see if the claimant has used the promise as a reason in making decisions.
b) Examples include making of a life of career move which may consist of moving to a specific property to be close to a farm or working on the same farm for an entire career with little or no pay.
Reliance on the promise has caused the claimant to suffer detriment.
EXPLAIN
a) This can come in many different forms; it is likely that this will be of financial detriment.
b) Examples include working long hours for little to no pay; or the inability to enter an alternative career or job.
c) The Courts, however, will have regard to any benefits received in assessing detriment, such as free accommodation.
Reliance on the promise has caused the claimant to suffer detriment.
CASES
d) Inwards v. Baker
a. The son improved his father’s land by building a bungalow on it in reliance on the assurance that he had received that he would be able to live there as long as he lived.
e) Pascoe v. Turner
a. She spent money improving, repairing and redecorating the house of her former lover in reliance on his representation that she was entitled to an interest in it.
f) Yaxley v. Gotts
a. The plaintiff acted to his detriment by refurbishing the house which was owned by the defendant.
S116 LRA Act 2002 means..
that estoppel equity is capable of binding third parties. It allows estoppel to be registered and can take effect the moment it arises.
Therefore, it can be protected by a notice against the title.
