Proprietary Estoppel

?
  • Created by: Aimee
  • Created on: 30-12-16 10:40
What is proprietary estoppel?
An equitable remedy preventing the legal owner of the property from asserting their strict legal rights of the property when it would be inequitable to do so.
1 of 26
Proprietary estoppel may be used when there was a...
Promise to transfer land or an interest in land to you, you act in a way that detriments you and then they go back on their promise.
2 of 26
Who is the person who makes the promise to another person?
Representor
3 of 26
Who is the person who the promise is made to?
Representee
4 of 26
Case- Rationale for proprietary estoppel
Crab v Arun District Council [1976]
5 of 26
Case that established a strict criteria for proprietary estoppel?
Willmott v Barber [1880] 'Five Probanda'
6 of 26
Case that adopted the broader unconscionable approach to proprietary estoppel?
Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd [1982]
7 of 26
Case that adopted a holistic approach to proprietary estoppel? That parts overlap. Quote?
Gillett v Holt [2001] 'Must look at the matter in the round'
8 of 26
Case that contrasts the holistic approach by taking a 'rigourous analytical approach' to proprietary estoppel?
Yeoman's Row Management Co Ltd v Cobbe [2008]
9 of 26
4 elements of proprietary estoppel?
1 An assurance made by one person to another 2 A reliance on that assurance 3 The reliance is to their detriment 4 It would be unconscionable to go back on the assurance
10 of 26
Assurance can be made by... (2)
An express promise OR by passive/active encouragement of expenditure or altering of legal position
11 of 26
Case- Express promise
Re Basham [1986]: Stepdaughter spent time and money looking after stepfather. Moved to the area to take care of him. He made assurance that she would inherit the house when he died. He died intestate.
12 of 26
Case- Active encouragement of expenditure
Inwards v Baker [1956]: Son couldn't afford to build bungalow. Father allowed him to build on his land. Became son's permanent home. Father's will passed the land onto Inwards not his son. Unconscionable, Inwards was estopped from possession of land.
13 of 26
Case- There can be mixed motives as to why a person acts in their detriment
Wayling v Jones [1995]: Campbell cared for the elderly couple as he was promised to inherit the house. He would have cared for them anyway.
14 of 26
Case- The representation must come before the detrimental reliance
Churchill v Roach [2004]
15 of 26
Case that says there must be 'substantial detriment'
Gillett v Holt [2001]
16 of 26
Explain Jennings v Rice [2003]
Jennings cared for elderly widow with little pay. It put a strain on his marriage. Believed he would get the furniture and the house. Widow died intestate. He received money based on the care he gave but no property.
17 of 26
Point in Sledmore v Dalby [1996]
There will not be detriment if the benefits the claimant receives outweigh the detriment. Eg. not having to pay rent
18 of 26
Explain the criteria of unconscionability
A judicial tool used to redress injustice. It would be unconscionable for the landowner to go back on his assurance and deny the claimant a remedy.
19 of 26
Case- The result must shock the conscience of the court
Yeoman's Row Management Ltd v Cobbe [2003]
20 of 26
Why is a claim in proprietary estoppel risky?
You may get nothing at all. It is at the court's discretion.
21 of 26
Case- 'the minimum equity to do justice between the parties'
Crabb v Arun District Council [1976]
22 of 26
Explain Davies v Davies [2015]
Daughter had an interest in farming and was in a dispute with her parents. Courts adopted a holistic approach. She acted to her retirement, stayed in a strained environment and wasn't paid. Was awarded £500,000 but no estate.
23 of 26
Does the equity bind the representer's successors in title? Statute?
Yes. LRA 2002 s.116.
24 of 26
Similarities between proprietary estoppel and constructive trusts
1 They both require detriment 2 Detriment is measured in the same way
25 of 26
Differences between proprietary estoppel and constructive trusts
1 Constructive trusts must show common intention whereas for proprietary estoppel, there must be a representation or misapprehension. 2 CT retrospective, PE prospective 3 PE riskier and more flexible
26 of 26

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Promise to transfer land or an interest in land to you, you act in a way that detriments you and then they go back on their promise.

Back

Proprietary estoppel may be used when there was a...

Card 3

Front

Representor

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Representee

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Crab v Arun District Council [1976]

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Property Law resources »