Proprietary Estoppel

Question 1

What is the purpose of proprietary estoppel?

Answer 1

To prevent a landowner from asserting their strict legal rights when it would be unconscionable due to another’s detrimental reliance on an assurance of property rights.

Question 2

When does proprietary estoppel typically arise?

Answer 2

When a person is encouraged or allowed to act to their detriment in the belief they will acquire an interest in land.

Question 3

What are the 4 core elements of proprietary estoppel?

Answer 3

Assurance of a right in property

Reliance on the assurance

Detriment suffered due to that reliance

Unconscionability – the outcome must be unfair if the estoppel is not enforced.

Question 4

Must an assurance be express and written to support a proprietary estoppel claim?

Answer 4

No – it can be implied from conduct, silence, or informal representations (Thorner v Major).

Question 5

What case confirmed that implied assurances can suffice?

Answer 5

Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18 – a nephew worked unpaid on a farm for years based on informal assurances.

Question 6

What is required for the reliance element?

Answer 6

The claimant must have changed their position or acted in a way they otherwise would not have, in response to the assurance.

Question 7

In which case was reliance found lacking due to motivation being love rather than land entitlement?

Answer 7

Coombes v Smith [1986] 1 WLR 808.

Question 8

Does the court presume reliance on assurances?

Answer 8

Yes – in Greasley v Cooke [1980], reliance was presumed unless the defendant can prove otherwise.

Question 9

Must the detriment be financial?

Answer 9

No – detriment can include loss of life opportunities or unpaid labour (Gillett v Holt [2000]).

Question 10

Can continuing to care for a household qualify as detriment?

Answer 10

Yes – as shown in Greasley v Cooke [1980], caring for a family without pay in reliance on an assurance was sufficient.

Question 11

What is the role of unconscionability in proprietary estoppel?

Answer 11

It is the equitable trigger—courts only intervene when denying the claimant would be unjust.

Question 12

Which case emphasized unconscionability as the decisive factor?

Answer 12

Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18 – a nephew worked unpaid on a farm for years based on informal assurances.

Question 13

What are three forms of assurance?

Answer 13

Express promises – e.g., “This land will be yours.”

Conduct or silence – creating a reasonable belief.

Family/informal arrangements – typically non-contractual.

Question 14

In which case did a father encourage his son to build a house but later exclude him in a will?

Answer 14

Dilwyn v Llewellyn (1862).

Question 15

Which case held that silence during construction could constitute encouragement?

Answer 15

Clare v Kellarie (1970) 16 WIR 40.

Question 16

Which case rejected estoppel due to mere delay in objecting?

Answer 16

Jones v Stones [1999] 1 WLR 1739.

Question 17

What are the five probanda from Willmott v Barber?

Answer 17

Mistaken belief

Expenditure or detriment

Landowner knew of their rights

Landowner knew of the mistake

Landowner encouraged the mistake

Question 18

Are all five elements still required today?

Answer 18

No – modern courts focus on unconscionability and adopt a more flexible, equitable approach (Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees).

Question 19

Which case shifted the emphasis from rigid criteria to unconscionability?

Answer 19

Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees [1982].

Question 20

What types of relief may be granted in a successful estoppel claim?

Answer 20

Transfer of title

Monetary compensation

Licence or easement
(Inwards v Baker, Jennings v Rice)

Question 21

Must the remedy always match the expectation?

Answer 21

No – it must be proportionate to the detriment (Jennings v Rice [2002]).

Question 22

Can proprietary estoppel override testamentary dispositions?

Answer 22

Yes – courts may override wills if denying an estoppel would be unjust (Gillett v Holt).

Question 23

Jennings v Rice (2002),

Answer 23

a man cared for an elderly woman for many years without pay, believing he would inherit her house. When she passed away without leaving him anything, the court found that denying his claim would be unconscionable. Instead of granting him full ownership, the court awarded monetary compensation proportional to his detriment.

Question 24

Thorner v. Major [2009] UKHL 18

Answer 24

A farmer informally led his nephew to believe he would inherit the farm. The nephew worked on the farm without pay for years. The court held that the assurance was clear enough, and denying the nephew an interest would be unconscionable.

Question 25

Coombes v. Smith [1986] 1 WLR 808

Answer 25

the claimant was in a romantic relationship with the landowner. She left her husband for him, and the couple had a child. The court found that the claimant had not relied on any assurance because her reason for acting was love, not the expectation that any property entitlement.

Question 26

Wayling v Jones [1995] 2 FLR 1029

Answer 26

the claimant worked for the landowner very cheaply, believing he would inherit their hotel. However, he admitted that he would have worked cheaply even if he had not been promised the hotel, as they were in love. Despite this, his proprietary estoppel claim succeeded. The court reasoned that if he had known the landowner intended to break the promise, the claimant would have left.

Question 27

Gillett v. Holt [2000] EWCA Civ 66

Answer 27

In this case, the claimant (G) worked for a farmer for 40 years, foregoing other career opportunities based on express assurances that he would inherit the farm and its business. Despite these promises, the farmer later dismissed G and transferred the property to someone else. G brought a claim based on proprietary estoppel, arguing that he had relied on the assurances to his detriment.

Question 28

Greasley v. Cooke [1980] 1 WLR 1306

Answer 28

In this case, a young woman (D) worked as a maid in a household and later formed a domestic relationship with one of the sons, living with him as though married. She stopped receiving wages but continued to care for the family based on an assurance that she could reside in the house for life. When her partner died and his heirs (the claimants) sought possession of the house, she raised proprietary estoppel as a defence, claiming a right to live in the home rent-free for life.

Question 29

Dilwyn v. Llewelyn

Answer 29

With the encouragement and knowledge of his father, the son spent £14,000 to build a house on the father's land. The father signed an unsealed memo purporting to convey the land to the son. But in the father's will it was discovered that all his real estate was devised on trusts for others. The son succeeded in getting a conveyance of the fee simple interest

Question 30

Jones v. Stones [1999] 1 WLR 1739

Answer 30

The dispute arose between the claimants, Mr. and Mrs. Jones, and the defendant, Mr. Stones, concerning a boundary wall separating their respective properties in Gwynedd, Wales. Mr. Stones had placed a diesel oil tank and several flower pots on top of this wall. The Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's decision regarding the oil tank and flower pots. The appellate court held that mere delay in objecting did not amount to acquiescence or establish a proprietary estoppel. There was no evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Jones had encouraged Mr. Stones to believe he had the right to place or keep the items on the wall, nor that Mr. Stones had relied on any such belief to his detriment.

Question 31

Clare v. Kellarie

Answer 31

Clarke had leasehold property. Allowed her brother-in-law to live there. After he built a house, Clarke sought to evict him. Had visited often during construction without saying anything. Court granted lifelong licence to K on condition he paid rent.

Question 32

Willmott v. Barber (1880) 15 Ch. D. 96

Answer 32

The plaintiff, Willmott, was suing two defendants, John Barber and William Bowyer. Barber had agreed to sell the plaintiff a leasehold interest in land. He also agreed that he would compel Bowyer, the holder of another lease, to consent to the assignment of that lease. The plaintiff argued that Bowyer was precluded (estopped) from objecting to the assignment, even though he had the legal power to make such an objection. The plaintiff claimed that Barber and Bowyer were acting in collusion, and that Bowyer had refused assent to the assignment on Barber's instructions. Therefore, allowing him to refuse consent would work a gross fraud upon the plaintiff.

Question 33

Taylor Fashions v. Liverpool Victoria Trustees [1982] 2 WLR 576

Answer 33

The claimants were tenants of the defendant, and purported to have an option to renew the lease. While the defendants had initially believed such an option to exist, they denied it was enforceable, as it later turned out to be unregistered. The claimants claimed to have substantially improved the lot on the assumption that they had a right to renew the lease. The court was not convinced that the defendants had done anything to encourage the first claimants to make the improvements, nor had they sat by and done nothing in the belief that the claimants were only improving the lot because they thought they could renew the lease. Nor was it clear that there was reliance. Reliance requires there to be some causal link between the claimant’s actions and their decision to improve the lot, and the first claimant would likely have made the improvements even if they did not believe they had a right to renew. By contrast, the defendants had encouraged the second claimant to make improvements in the belief that they could renew the lease.

Question 34

Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd v. Texas Commerce Bank Ltd [1981]

Answer 34

The dispute involved a bank (T) and a corporate group (A), where both parties mistakenly assumed that A guaranteed loans made by T’s subsidiary to A’s subsidiary. When A's subsidiary defaulted and A’s liquidators sought a declaration of non-liability, T invoked estoppel by convention, arguing that both sides had acted throughout under the common assumption that A had guaranteed the loans in question.

Question 35

Re Basham [1986] 1 WLR 498

Answer 35

The claimant (C) and her husband had provided unpaid help and support to her mother and stepfather over many years, based on the assurance that she would inherit the stepfather’s cottage after his death. Although C had never lived in or taken possession of the cottage, she relied on the clear and repeated assurance in choosing not to pursue paid work or alternative opportunities.