Proprietary Estoppel

Question 1

What are the main elements of PE
case?

Answer 1

Thorner v Major [2009]

L Walker: ‘the doctrine is based on three main elements […]: a representation or assurance made to the claimant; reliance on it by the claimant; and detriment to the claimant in consequence of his (reasonable) reliance’.

Question 2

What is the PE meant to prevent?
cases

Answer 2

• Gillet v Holt [2001]
  -> Robert Walker LJ: ‘reliance and detriment are often intertwined’, principle is meant to ‘prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine’.
• Guest v Guest [2022]
  -> Lord Briggs: ‘equitable remedy is to restrain, or stop or ‘estop’ the promisor from reneging on the promise’.
  -> L Denning: normally estoppel is a shield and not a sword but proprietary estoppel is a sword.
  -> You can base a right entirely off PE and create a new right (contrast from promissory estoppel).

Question 3

Representation or Assurance of PE

Answer 3

1. Low v Bouverie [1891] -> representation needs to be clear and unambiguous.
2. Sidney Bolson Investment Trust Ltd v E Karmios & Co. (London) Ltd [1956] -> representation must be intended to be acted upon - use objective test.
3. Thorner v Major [2009] -> HL take into account context, including persona circumstances, in order to establish whether representation was clear.
4. Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] -> no PE because:
   -> 1. Cobbe not able to identify interest in property since bargain they struck was never that he would obtain a title. Was attempting to use PE to give a contractual interest (not possible).
   -> 2. Cobbe was a commercial actor and experience property developer and his contract was unenforceable (not written down - s.2 LPMPA), knew it was unenforceable -> doesn’t much matter if this is a representation or reliance.
   -> RULE: in commercial cases, representation is not meant to be acted upon if the parties are aware they have no legal rights or are bound in honour only.

Question 4

Reliance for PE

Answer 4

1. Greasley v Cooke [1980].
   -> L Denning: but for test difficult and lies only within the minds of the parties, therefore can presume reliance unless there’s explicit evidence you can displace it.
2. Wayling v Jones (1993)
   -> Balcombe LJ: reliance same for CICT and PE.
   -> Promise relied upon need not be sole inducement, ‘it is sufficient if they are an inducement’.

Question 5

Detriment for PE

Answer 5

1. Gillet v Holt [2001]
   -> Gillet had representation BUT Holt paid Gillet, therefore argument that Gillet didn’t suffer any detriment (in reality, detriment = didn’t take other job offers, forwent opportunity for an education, more than just financial).
2. Suggitt v Suggitt [2012]
   -> Detriment = position actions around expectation from representation that is not realised.

Question 6

Unconscionability for PE

Answer 6

1. Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008]
   -> ‘Unconscionability of conduct may well lead to a remedy but, in my opinion, proprietary estoppel cannot be the route to it unless the ingredients for a proprietary estoppel are present’.
   -> Need to show more elements than just unconscionability -> representation, detriment and reliance.
2. Guest v Guest [2024]
   -> L Briggs: PE may exist if 3 elements satisfied but no unconscionability. Generally flexible principle.

Question 7

Remedy for PE

Answer 7

1. Crabb v Arun DC [1976] -> (Scarman LJ) ‘if there is no agreement as to terms, if agreement fails to be obtained, the court can […] and must, determine in these proceedings upon what terms the plaintiff should be put to enable him to have the benefit of the equitable right which he is held to have’.
2. Jennings v Rice [2002] -> (Aldous LJ) must be proportionality between expectations and detriment; (L Walker) if claimant’s expectations are uncertain or out of proportion, courts should recognise that the claimant’s equity should be satisfied in another and generally more limited way.
3. Guest v Guest [2022] -> remedy driven by unconscionability. Don’t need proportionality but can’t be DISproportionate.
   -> L Legget -> can fulfil expectations but can’t always value detriment (more than financial).
   -> Perhaps better to have imperfect justice that is cheaper than perfect justice which is costly? (Utilitarian judgement).