Proprietary Estoppel Flashcards
(41 cards)
what is the central concept to proprietary Estoppel?
“the essence of estoppel is that the court may award an interest in land as a remedy against a landowner who has conducted themselves in such a way that it would be unconscionable for them to assert their strict and unqualified rights as the owner, and therefore deny the claimant entitlement” - Layton v. Martin
Moriarty (1984) outlines proprietary Estoppel as:
“Proprietary Estoppel will validate what the law of property says has no effect.”
what is the purpose of formalities and which formalities are required for the transfer of land? and what is Estoppel role in this.
As property rights are binding on third party’s they require adherence to stricter formalities than other forms of contract. They require a deed per s.52 of the Law of Property Act 1925. the role of estoppel is to mitigate the harshness and difficulities that emerge as a result of a reliance on formalities.
what was the original case concerning proprietary Estoppel?
Wilmott v. Barber (1880), this is the case where Lord Fry outlined 5 probanda which would need to be satisfied for an estoppel to arise. This probanda were incredibly restrictive and only applied in cases mainly involving fraud and deception
What are the three informal ways in which proprietary estoppel may arise?
- Promise of a gift - this can be seen in the case of Dillwyn v. Llewelyn
- Common expectation - this can be seen in the case of Rasmden v. Dyson
- Mistaken belief that was not corrected by the defendant - this was outlined by Lord Chancellor in the case of Ramsdon v. Dyson
How many successful proprietary estoppel cases were there between 1880-1980?
None
What was the case which operated under a less restrictive approach following Wilmott v. Barber?
Taylor Fashions ltd. v. Liverpool Victoria Trustees [1982] - this case concerned a renewal of a lease, putting a considerable amount of work into the property and not being able to renew it. The court in this case held that although an option to renew a lease is not a registerable land charge, estoppel could prevent the unconscionable denial of rights by the landlord. they held that the 5 probanda outlined no longer needed to be fulfilled and that unconscionably should relate to proprietary estoppel more. Oliver LJ stated that “PE should not be fitted within the confines of some preconceived formula serving as a universal yard stick for every form of unconscionable behaviour”.
What are the requirements of Proprietary estoppel?
- Assurance
- Reliance
- Detriment
[all the above principles should be bound up in the principle of unconscionably]
What is the principle of unconscionably in relation to PE?
Robert Walker LJ stated in Gillett v. Holt “it is important that the doctrine of PE should not be sub divided into 3 or 4 categories… more over the fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all elements of the doctrine in that end the doctrine should be considered all around”.
Assurance.
assurance is an important element of proprietary estoppel as it ensures it is not merely a mistaken belief, therefore linking the activities of the claimant to the satisfaction of the estoppel.
What is the nature of the assurance?
there can be both active and passive assurance.
there is also a difference highlighted between commercial and family assurances (this was drawn in the case of Cobbe v. Yeomans Row Management
Commercial context vs. Family context for the operation of proprietary estoppel
This was outlined in the case of Cobbe v. Yeomans Row Management - which stated that if it is a commercial context the expression of the nature of rights should be more specific than in a domestic one (per Lord Walker), he contrasted this with family based cases where the claimant believed that the assurance was binding and irrevocable such as Baker v. Inwards
Baker v. Inwards
A father told his son to build his house on his land because then the son could have a larger house, there was a mere common expectation that the land would pass from father to son. Upon the fathers death Inward gained his entire estate, and argued that therefore the house was his. The court held he was estopped from claiming so.
Active assurance v. Passive assurance?
Active assurence:
if the landowner had by his words or conduct lead the claimant to expect that he has some interest in the land - this can be seen in the case of Pascoe v. Turner
Passive assurance:
if you do not correct someone under the impression that they will gain a property right in your land (this is commonly done through wills etc.) - this can be seen in the case of Ramsdan v. Dyson
Pascoe v. Turner [1979]
A moved in with C and became his house keeper the became his lover, moved in to a house together, A had an affair and moved out, C told A that the house was hers and it was all fine, once the heartbreak had ended then C claimed he wanted his house back! The court held that the representation C had made was sufficient for proprietary estoppel
Gillett v. Holt [2000]
G did left school to work on H’s farm, he did not pursue further education, and worked long hours for low wages, to be written into H’s will, following a dispute H removed G from his will and sacked him (after 40 years)
In this case the House of Lords held that there need only be a sufficient link between the detriment and the assurances made.
this case highlights the power of PE to override a will
Cobbe v. Yeomans Row Managment [2000]
C was a property developer who entered into negotiations with A, reached an oral agreement that C would do planning application and A could sell the property for an agreed price. C underwent extensive detriment in order to get the planning permission, however after it was achieved C withdrew the offer to sell the house at the agreed price and demanded more - there was no contract agreed. In this case the Court held that C should not have been so naive - Lord Scott argued that unconscionably alone could not constitute a claim for PE, but need the other elements.
What is the relationship between s.2 LP(MP)A 1989 and PE?
In the case of Yeamons Row v. Cobbe it was held that statue should over ride the doctrine of PE. this was widely criticised by academics as it is a strong departure from the traditional purpose of PE as a mitigation from the harshness in the requirement of formalities. However this did provide more certainty in the law. This was contrasted in the case of Thorner v. major [2009] - link the requirement of formalities on if the context of the transaction is familial or commercial
Thorner v. Major [2009]
There was a disagreement in relation to a farm, although no express declaration was made, an insurance policy was handed to the claimant - the court held that this amounted to assurances of an interest in land. the court of appeal held that there was no estoppel due to the case of Cobbe v. Yeamons Row
House of Lords held: in familial contexts this could amount to a PE claim
Lord Walker argues that this would not open the floodgates due to PE’s narrow scope
it is a regrettable emasculation of proprietary estoppel to require the extent of the property to be strictly defined in every case, the strictness of the formalities would be inconsistent with the fundamental aims of equity
Taylor v. Dickens [1998]
The old lady and her Gardener case:
the old lady’s gardener stopped charging her for jobs etc. he was omitted from her will, claimed he should have an interest in the estate.
Court held that because the old lady had not encouraged the belief it should not give rise to an estoppel - this decision has been heavily criticised - see Gillett v. Holt
Passive assurance through a will.
Taylor v. Dickens held that a will could not be changed by PE if the testatrix had not encouraged a belief in an acquisition of an interest in land. Whereas Gillett v. Holt suggests that the inherent irrevocably of a will is irrelevant, it is the quality of the assurances. This case argues that it is the parties detrimental reliance that makes the assurance irrevocable. The case of Thorner v. Major held that it is the reasonable bystander who should judge the quality of assurances
Reliance
This is heavily linked with the element of detriment. The reliance connects the assurance to the detriment. Therefore if you can prove detriment and assurance, reliance is presumed and the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the rights.
This can be evidenced by the case of Coombes v. Smith
Coombes v. Smith
This case is associated with the element of reliance. Two lovers (C and S) whilst married to different people , S purchased a house and intended to live together. C moved in and decorated the house etc. She then fell pregnant, S has another affair and unable to uphold 3 relationships ends it with C, however allows C to stay in the house until their daughter was 17. In this case the court held that emotional feelings of detriment such as leaving her husband and having a child should not amount to reliance.
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 disregarded - the essence is unconscionably”. - Gillett v. Holt
