Révision Weeks 12, 14, 15 Flashcards
Proprietary Estoppel
Basis of the doctrine:
- To prevent a person from insisting on his strict legal rights where to do so would be inequitable having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties. (Biehler)
- Exception to the formalities required for the creation of interests in land
- Rationale: Prevent unconscionable behaviour.
- Invoked almost exclusively for land but can extend to other property.
Proprietary Estoppel requirements
Thorner v Major [2009]
‘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.’
So:
- Representation / Assurance
- Reliance
- Detriment
- Causal link between assurance and detriment (Gillett v Holt [2001])
Proprietary Estoppel Representation / Assurance
- Must with the intention that it should be relied on
- Mere expression of opinion not enough
- C.D. v J.D.F. [2006] McGuinness J:
‘there must actually be a promise, or at least a reasonably clear direct representation or inducement of some kind’
- Thorner v Major [2009]
Lord Scott - must be ‘clear and unequivocal’ (at 783).
Lord Neuberger said that this principle must be read as subject to some qualifications.
-> Effect of the relevant words or actions must be assessed in their context
-> It would be wrong to be unrealistically rigorous when applying the ‘Clear and unambiguous’ test.
-> It must be understood that there may be cases where the statements relied on to be found an estoppel could amount to an assurance which could reasonably be understood as having more than one possible meaning.
Wayling v Jones (1993)
Proprietary Estoppel Reliance
Balcome LJ stated that: ‘once it has been established that promises were made, and that there has been conduct by the plaintiff of such a nature that inducement may be inferred then the burden of proof shifts to the defendants to establish that he did not rely on the promises’
Proprietary Estoppel Detriment
Detriment will be suffered where:
- assurance on which reliance is placed is withdrawn and
- unconscionable for the legal owner to insist on enforcing his or her strict legal rights.
Detriment - must be substantial
- Bracken v Byrne [2006] 1 ILRM 91 - planning permission
- McDonagh v Denton [2005] IEHC 127 - specific performance claim
- Naylor v Maher [2012] IEHC 408
Detriment has to be substantial and not minor
Proprietary estoppel categories
- Where an imperfect gift is made
- Common expectation
- Unilateral mistake
Imperfect gift
Equity will not complete an imperfect gift
Common expectation
Dealings cause shared assumption that would acquire rights in the other party’s lands
- Ramsden v Dyson (1866)
-> Expectation must be encouraged by the landowner
-> Cannot spend money hoping for rights
- Plimmer v Mayor of Wellington (1884)
- Inwards v Baker [1965]
Belief must be encouraged:
- Attorney General of Hong Kong v Humphrey’s Estate [1987]
- Haughan v Rutledge [1988]
Ramsden v Dyson (1866)
Unilateral Mistake
Promissory Estoppel
A doctrine that applies when a promisor makes a clear and definite promise on which the promisee justifiably relies; such a promise is binding if justice will be better served by the enforcement of the promise.
Rectification
Equitable Remedy which allows for the correction of an instrument which has failed to record the actual intentions of the parties to a contract.
Rectification - Mutual Mistake
Is one where the written instrument does not accurately record the intention of both parties.
Common Continuing Intention
- Monaghan County Council v Vaughn
Parties have CCI, but the written instrument does not accurately record it. Thus, the court can order the rectification of the written instrument so that it accurately records the parties’ common intention
To establish the CCI, must ask what an objective observer would have considered their intentions to be
- Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd
If there is a lack of precision upon what the CCI is, then rectification will be refused
- Irish Life Assurance v Dublin Land Securities
Unilateral Mistake
When the written instrument does not accurately record the intention of one of the parties only
Awarded when there is some element of fraud or sharp practice by the party against whom the relief is sought would be inequitable in the circumstances to allow that person to retain a benefit derived from the mistake
Irish Life Assurance v Dublin Land Securities
The plaintiff must establish:
- That the terms agreed to rally were not written down properly
- That there is an error that is fraudulent or innocent
- That at the time of the execution of the written document, the defendant knew or ought to have known of the error and the plaintiff did not
- The defendant’s attempt to rely on the erroneous written document must amount to “fraud or the equivalent of fraud”
Sylvan Lake Golf and Tennis Club v Performance Industries
Rescission
The revocation, cancellation, or repeal of a law, order, or agreement. Void ab initio - when rescission is granted, it is applied retrospectively. Goal of rescission is to unwind the contract and return the parties back to their original position - restitutio in integrum (restitution to the original position). If recission is impossible, recission cannot be awarded
Common law rescission
Common law rescission occurs often when a party breaches one of its obligations
If a minor breach - other party can get damage so if major, fundamental breach - the other party can ask for performance and damages, or they can ask for rescission. No meeting of the mind’s rescission - when the parties do not agree on terms and have no prior agreement to a contract
