Proprietary estoppel 2 Flashcards
What are the key elements involved in proprietary estoppel?
Assurance/Representation, Reliance, Detriment, and Equity by Estoppel.
What case introduces the concept of satisfying the equity inherent in proprietary estoppel cases?
Gillett v Holt [2001].
How do courts determine remedies in proprietary estoppel cases according to Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] and Guest v Guest [2022]?
By emphasising justice and the unconscionability of not fulfilling promises.
What is the controversy in determining remedies in proprietary estoppel?
(Question if you should just get what you was promised or more than that?)
Between fulfilling the promisee’s expectation and compensating for their reliance and detriment.
Which cases highlight the court’s discretion in balancing expectation vs. reliance to achieve justice?
Jennings v Rice [2003]
-Principle: Relief based on proprietary estoppel must be proportional to the detriment suffered, rather than fully aligned with the claimant’s expectations. This approach was later revised in Habberfield v Habberfield.
Facts: A gardener-turned-full-time-unpaid carer for an elderly woman was promised her house but received no formal will to this effect.
Decision: The Court awarded the carer £200,000, much less than the house’s value, emphasizing the need for a proportional relationship between the claimant’s expectations and the detriment they endured.
Rationale: The award was influenced by considerations such as the extent of the claimant’s detriment relative to their expectation, potential misconduct, and the need for a fair and practical resolution.
What principle ensures remedies are not out of proportion to the detriment suffered?
The principle of proportionality, as discussed in Crabb v Arun District Council [1976], Jennings v Rice [2003], and Guest v Guest [2022].
How does LRA 2002 s.116 affect proprietary estoppel?
It clarifies that equities by estoppel can bind successors in title from the time the equity arises.
What do Chaudhary v Yavuz [2013] and Henry v Henry [2010] explore?
The nuances of proprietary estoppel’s interaction with third-party interests and priorities.
What sections of LPA 1925 address the overreaching of equitable interests?
(What case)
LPA 1925 s.2(1) and the case Sweet v Sommer [2005] address the overreaching of equitable interests it distinguishing between different types of equitable interests and their susceptibility to overreaching.
(Particularly addresses that:
-A conveyance to a purchaser of a legal estate in land shall overreach any equitable interest or power affecting that estate, whether or not he has notice thereof)
How do formalities for contracts involving land relate to proprietary estoppel according to LP(MP)A 1989, s.2(1)?
LP(MP)A 1989, s.2(1) sets formalities for contracts involving land, with Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row [2008] and Lord Neuberger’s commentary highlighting the balance between statutory requirements and equitable principles.
What common ground do the doctrines of proprietary estoppel and constructive trusts share?
They address unconscionable conduct, as illustrated in Yaxley v Gotts [2000] and Stack v Dowden [2007], showing their shared foundation in addressing issues of fairness and justice.
How does academic discussion influence the understanding of proprietary estoppel? (which authors would you refer to for this topic?)
Writings by Robertson, McFarlane and Sales, and others continue to shape our understanding of proprietary estoppel, particularly regarding the balance between expectation and reliance, and the equitable discretion in framing remedies.
How does the principle of proportionality affect remedies in proprietary estoppel?
The principle of proportionality ensures remedies are not out of proportion to the detriment suffered, guiding the courts to award equitable remedies that reflect the extent of the claimant’s detriment.
What role does LRA 2002 s.116 play in the context of proprietary estoppel?
It clarifies that equities by estoppel can bind successors in title from the time the equity arises, emphasising the lasting impact of estoppel claims on property rights.
How do cases like Chaudhary v Yavuz [2013] and Henry v Henry [2010] contribute to the doctrine of proprietary estoppel/constructive trusts?
They explore the nuances of constructive trusts interaction with third-party interests and priorities, highlighting the complex application of the doctrine in real-world scenarios.
- Chaudhary v Yavuz [2013]
=outlined that Registrable interests are unlikely to be protected by constructive trusts
Easements are not capable of becoming overriding interests by way of actual occupation
+ that an equitable easement over the staircase can be created by proprietary estoppel which was enforceable on either of two grounds:
A) As an overriding interest protected by actual occupation pursuant to s29 and sch 3 LRA 2002.
B) As a constructive trust imposed by the terms of the contract pursuant to Lyus v Prowsa.
-Henry v Henry [2010]
=outlined that In assessing whether proprietary estoppel arises, the court must balance the detriment suffered by the claimant against any advantages he received while acting on reliance of the assurances given.
