proprietary estoppel Flashcards
(25 cards)
What is proprietary estoppel?
A doctrine in equity that offers a remedy when A’s promise has not been made enforceable by legal instrument.
Lord Brigg in Guest v Guest?
“One of the principal functions of equity is to put right injustice to which the law is otherwise blind, by restraining the rigid application of legal rules where their implementation would be unconscionable.”
What are the elements of proprietary estoppel
Crabb v Arun District Council
1. landowner (A) makes an assurance to B
2. on which B relies
3. to B’s detriment
4. given all of this, it would be unconscionable for A to renege
5. B has raised an equity
6. leading to a remedy
Bibby v Stirling
- H owned a strip of land and allowed S to use it for a yearly fee
- After two years, S built a greenhouse on the strip without complaint from H
- When S’s widow claimed the land, CA HELD she had an equity entitling her to remain there for her life
- ‘…might [H] reasonably have concluded that [S] was relying on him not to reclaim possession unless he needed the land, and was assuming this would not be for many years?’
rough categories of proprietary estoppel
- Common expectation: Crabb, commercial cases
- Imperfect gift: farming cases
- Acquiescence: Bibby v Stirling.
What were the facts of Gillet v Holt?
- G left school at 15 to work on H’s farm - H became G’s ‘surrogate family’, influenced/ controlled social life and sons’ schooling
- Several promises were made over time to effect that G would inherit the farm and take over the business
- HELD (CA) Gillett had an equity by estoppel: ordered transfer of the land (freehold title)
- Rather than narrowly quantifying wages etc, the detriment looked at in the round was the missed opportunity by him and his wife to better themselves in other way
detriment in Gillet v Holt
- Detriment is ‘not a narrow or technical concept’ and ‘need not consist of the expenditure of money or other quantifiable detriment’.
- ‘Whether the detriment is sufficiently substantial is to be tested by whether it would be unjust or inequitable to allow the assurance to be disregaerded - that is, again, the essential test of unconscionability’
unconscionability in Gillet v Holt
Unconscionability is the element that confirms and unifies the assurance, relaince and detriment elements
What were the facts of Thorner v Major?
- Distant cousin worked on Major’s farm for free, doing hard physical labour in return for an assumed inheritance.
- D’s detriment over 30 years was clear, but P had only made oblique assurances:
- Life insurance documents ‘are for my death duties’
- ‘that hedge freezes over in winter’
- Will left land to D - but it was destroyed (for unrelated reasons)
- HELD (HL): it sufficed that were words or conduct which in context and looking at the parties’ relationship would reasonably be understood by the promisee to be an assurance
assurance in Thorner v Major
- What words/conduct objectively would have meant to a bystander, taking into account the subjective context and relationship
- Lord Hoffmann: Whether ‘the meaning [the promisor] conveyed would reasonably have been understood to be taken seriously as an assurance which could be relied upon’
- Lord Walker: The evidence showed a continuing pattern of conduct by Peter for the remaining 15 years of his life and it would not be helpful to try to break down that pattern into discrete elements.’
unconscionability in Thorner v Major
“the fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine… in the end the court must look at the matter in the round”
Walton v Walton; Spencer v Spencer?
Unconscionability is judged from the moment the promise is repudiated, looking back.
Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd
unconscionablity
Lord Walker:
* ‘If the other elements appear to be present but the result does not shock the conscience of the court, the analysis needs to be looked at again.’
Davies v Davies
Proprietary estoppel is a sword as well as a shield, unlike promissory estoppel which is a weak defence
Crabb v Arun DC
remedies
Court must award the ‘minimum equity to do justice’
-> but awarded the promised right (easement) for free?
A Robertson
Most successful claims have tended to lead to an award of what was promised OR its value = expectation is a useful proxy for what was lost
Lord Walker extra-judicially expanding on his judgement in Jennings v Rice
remedies are on a spectrum
1. expectation loss: ‘quid pro quo’ with certain promise and certain detriment in exchange
2. detriment loss: may start with expectation but awards less if its disproportionate (unclear promise or low level of detriment)
Habberfield v Habberfield
- ‘all the Habberfield family has a temper’
- Lucy and Sarah have a fight in the milking parlour
- Lucy’s detriment was incapable of reduction to pounds and pence’
- Held CA: was at the ‘quasi-bargain’ end of the spectrum/sliding scale.
- awarded lump sum of £1.2m
- but, as so much cash was not available without selling the farm, Lucy’s monetary claim was to be secured by requiring the elderly mother to sell in order to meet the monetary claim
What did Lord Briggs state in Guest v Guest regarding remedies?
C should be given a remedy that reflects expectation loss.
Guest v Guest?
- Comments over time to the effect that Andrew would take over part of the farm
- Father: ‘It’s my farm, when you take over you can do what you want.;
- Working on the farm from age 16 (1982)
- Definite, clear assurance in 2012
- Fell out over different ways of doing business and Andrew was completely disinherited
- Held (HC): Andrew has raised an equity to be satisfied by a lump sum (reflecting value of what was promised)
- Appeal to SC concered the quantum
- Lord Briggs (majority): C should be given remedy that relfects expectation loss
Lord Briggs framework for remedies
- Starting point
- If it would be unconscionable to repudiate the promise, then equity favours enforcing the promise
- Reasons to not enforce in full
- Other people have equitable or moral claims to the same property
- Clean break is neded so all parties can move on
- Anticipation of a testamentary promise (unfair to force this now)
- not-bargain end of the spectrum
- Final considerations
- equity looks at matters in the round and seeks justice
- Choice of remedy
- Transferring the property now
- set up trust allowing for future distrubution of property
- monetary compensation
- licence
Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd
- Cobbe and YRML negotiated a joint development of prime real estate in Knightsbridge
- Gentleman’s agreement. Cobbe engaged architects and obtained planning permission on basis YRML would sell him land
- YRML then doubled the price and negotiations broke down
- Withput any contract, Cobbe sought relief on grounds including proprietary estoppel
- Held (HL) no PE claim, but Cobbe was warded compensation for his work
Proprietary estoppel in commercial contexts
Cobbe
* There is a high hurdle for proprietary estoppel in commercial disputes
* Lord Walker: ‘In the commercial context, the claimant is typically a business person with access to legal advice and what he or she is expecting to get is a contract. In the domestic or family context, the typical claimant is not a business person and is not recieving legal advice’
Haq v Island Homes
commercial context
‘there was nothing in the Council’s conduct on which Mr or Mrs Haq could fairly or reasonably rely as precluding the Council from insisting on its legal rights, so as to confine Mrs Haq to the statutory renewable rights as extended, once the works had been done, to the enlarged holding.’
