Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Proprietary estoppel (Definition - Ramsden v Dyson per Lord Kingsdown…

- - - - HELD: Son's expenditure + father's acquiescence = estoppel - son awarded equitable right to land
      - Freehold arose informally through estoppel - mistake case (narrow definition - has since been widened
- - - - Commercial - higher expectations of parties
        
        Crabb v Arun DC - would probably not be decided the same way now - informal conversation with Council over access - got rid of land with alternative access - when Council later denied access he was landlocked - knew he had no easement, but did have expectation - Court said Council had acted unconscionably #
        
        NOT Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management - Cobbe agreed to develop the land and then all would get something from increase in value - Yeoman's then refused - Cobbe claimed estoppel but denied - Court said he was acting on hope or gamble rather than expectation
      - Family/informal arrangements - Court more relaxed and tolerant of vague language - is how people speak in the context of the home
        
        Griffiths v Williams - promised daughter home for life - Court gave effect
        
        Gillett v Holt - promised to leave farm in will - Court gave effect #
        
        Thorner v Major - cousins - one owned the land and one worked on it for thirty years without payment - never talked about it but was underlying assumption that would leave to him - court gave effect
  - - - Does not need to know exactly what claimant is doing in reliance - general awareness is enough
  - - - Coombes v Smith - girlfriend lived in his house with his baby for over 10 years - had left her own home to be with him - court said she had not left her own home in reliance - was the normal reaction of someone unhappily married - normal family/domestic activity does not count
      - Maharaj v Chand - similar to C v S - held to be detrimental - became so once assurance of flat was withdrawn - Court held that she had only given up her own flat because she thought she had interest
      - Gillett v Holt - working for owner and not furthering career elsewhere
      - Greasley v Cook - looking after owner and family
      - Dillwyn v Llewyn - spending money building #
      - Crabb v Arun DC - selling land
- - - - As an equity it needs to be protected in order to be binding
        
        s32 notice, or
        
        Overriding interest under Sched 2 para 2 if claimant is in actual occupation
    - - No appropriate class of Land Charge
      - Doctrine of notice?
  - - - Crabb v Arun - expected to pay for easement - got it for free
    - - Expectation approach - generally used in business
        
        Dillwyn v Llywelyn
        
        Greasley v Cooke; Griffiths v Williams
      - Detriment approach - generally used in family
        
        Crabb v Arun - "the minimum equity to do justice"
        
        Dodsworth v Dodsworth - expected right to reside for life - awarded money instead
        
        Sledmore v Dalby - expected right to reside for life - got nothing - had been given free accomodation for 18 years and did not need property - only wanted for holiday home and defendant needed it to live in
        
        Pascoe v Turner - expected fee simple by gift - awarded fee simple - small expenditure actually represented 25% of all claimant had - money was a factor in deciding - to another person spending that amount would not have been detrimental
      - Jennings v Rice per Robert Walker LJ - drew distinction
        
        Businesses cases, where mutual understanding in reasonably clear terms
        
        Family cases, where expectations are uncertain
        
        Main case on remedy
        
        Owner promised claimant he'd be "alright" - claimant expected large house - awarded 200k - for valued of services and enough to buy suitable house
        
        Aldous J - must be proportionality between expectation and detriment