Proprietary Estoppel

Question 1

Proprietary Estoppel

Answer 1

Equitable doctrine that established proprietary rights or affects existing rights

Can be used as a defence or a basis for a claim

Often used where parties have not been clear as to precise proprietary right to be created or failed to follow formalities

Question 2

Moorgate Mercantile Co v Twitchings

Answer 2

“Where a man, by his words or conduct, has led another to believe in a particular state of affairs, he will not be allowed to go back on it when it would be unjust or inequitable for him to do so

Question 3

Probanda:

Answer 3

Ramsden v Dyson:

• C made mistake as to his rights over the owner’s land
• C spent money/did some other act because of the mistake
• O aware of his own rights
• O aware of C’s mistake
• O encouraged C, directly or indirectly, by not asserting his own rights

Question 4

Probanda are not strict rules. Is it unconscionable for the defendant to seek to take advantage of the mistake, which, at the material time, everyone shared

Answer 4

Taylors Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees

Question 5

Representation

Answer 5

Landowner must create some sort of expectation, either through active representation or passive acquiescence

Question 6

Representation need not be in precise terms, but must be sufficiently certain as to some sort of entitlement; conduct and oblique remarks may be sufficient

Answer 6

Thorner v Major

Question 7

Incomplete negotiations rarely give rise to estoppel as not intended to be binding

Answer 7

AG of HK v Humphrey’s Estate

Question 8

Promises to leave property under will could form the basis of an estoppel in certain circumstances - assured H privately and in front of witnesses that he would inherit farm, made several wills to that effect but left nothing in final will

Answer 8

Gillett v Holt - statement of intention is insufficient in itself, but if it goes beyond that e.g. is repeated over many years, in a way that is inconsistent with it being revocable, it may amount to assurance

Question 9

Seems to require an assurance as to a specific proprietary right and belief by claimant that assurance is binding - narrow application

Answer 9

Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management - more certainty needed in commercial cases

Question 10

Assurance must be ‘clear enough’. May be more uncertain in family/domestic setting

Answer 10

Thorner v Major

Question 11

Detriment - continuing in employment, not seeking or accepting other job offers, carrying out work and spending time beyond employee’s duty and taking no substantial steps to secure future wealth, expenditure on farmhouse = detriment

Answer 11

Gillett v Holt

Question 12

Detriment - improvements to landowner’s property

Answer 12

Inwards v Baker; Griffiths v Williams; Pascoe v Turner

Question 13

Detriment - unpaid work in landowner’s business

Answer 13

Wayling v Jones

Question 14

Detriment - unpaid work in landowner’s home

Answer 14

Campbell v Griffin; Greasley v Cooke

Question 15

Detriment - giving up job and accommodation to be near landowner

Answer 15

Maharaj v Shand

Question 16

Detriment - selling land he wouldn’t sell otherwise

Answer 16

Crabb v Arun DC

Question 17

Detriment must be suffered in reliance of assurance. If C would suffer detriment anyway, there can be no estoppel

Answer 17

Coombes v Smith

Question 18

Unconscionability

Answer 18

Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees

Question 19

Unconscionability is insufficient in itself, but where other 3 elements are found, it is likely that the court will find that the landowner acted unreasonably by enforcing strict legal rights

Answer 19

Re Basham deceased

Question 20

If land is sold before the remedy is awarded

Answer 20

equity by estoppel has effect from the time the equity arises as an interest capable of binding a successor in title

Equity may bind a purchaser - binding if in actual occupation; if not, must be protected by notice on charges register/doctrine of notice - Lloyd v Dugdale

Question 21

Remedies

Answer 21

Expectation approach - what claimant expected irrespective of whether expectation exceeds detriment suffered

Detriment approach - compensates claimant for broad detriment suffered, not just financial

Question 22

No award can exceed the claimant’s expectation

Answer 22

Baker v Baker

BUT in Crabb v Arun DC - expectation was easement for a fee, but free easement granted

Question 23

Must be proportionality between expectation and detriment

Answer 23

Jennings v Rice

Question 24

Transfer or freehold

Answer 24

Griffiths v Williams

Question 25

Right to reside for life

Answer 25

Pascoe v Turner

Question 26

Damages

Answer 26

Dodsworth v Dodsworth; Jennings v Rice

Question 27

Nothing

Answer 27

Sledmore v Dalby (had somewhere else to live; legal owner more vulnerable)