Proprietary Estoppel
Basic Elements
reliance
detriment
representation
CF v JDF husband and wife seperating, stud farm had been run with wifes assistance, husband used his fathers land with his own land, treating the land as if it it would be given to him. No promises ever made. No interest in the land
Thornier v Major thorner working on the farm, provided emotional and administrative support, statements made that implied thornier would get the land - dies intestate - House of Lords - there was sufficient representations made - context
Gillet v Holt - worked on farm since leaving school aged 12, Holt declined in health, Gillet ran farm on his behalf, sold his family home and used money to build house on farm - worked without pay - had been told land would be left to him - falling out - will changed - Gillets entire life was built around Holts promise - allowed to stay
McMahon v Kerry bought land, wanted to build school on land initially, plan fell through, moved away, didn't visit land regularly, comes back council planning to build on the land, McMahons gets them to stop, leaves again and comes back to discover two houses built on them - court held land left open, no intrinsic value - if land was handed back to McMahon he'd get a windfall - very strange decision
Brikom Investments v Carr reliance can be presumed if representation is proved
Greasley v Cook Cook domestic servant for family, stopped being paid at certain point, lived and fed on land, older generation dies, younger generations try to get rid of her - loss of opportunity was sufficient detriment - expendtiure not necessary
can only be remedied by granting of a property right to the plaintiff
Joran and Money loan made to medical student, struggles to repay it, agreement reached to accept smaller sum then is actually owed in full satisfaction of the debt - financial situation of medical student improves - lender sues for the balance of the loan - lack of fresh consideration for second agreement - not enforceable
Highfield block of flats, agreement reached during war over rents, unsupported by consideration - entitled to payments fro the war
aim
stop unequitable and unconscionable deals
equity prevents strict legal rights from being used in an unconscionable manner
estoppel was generally only a defence to being sued, but proprietary estoppel could also be used as a swrod
remedy
4th element - detriment can only be remedied by court awarding a property interest in the land
if not present court can award damages or restitution, but that would not be proprietary estoppel
origins
Nowland v Bagget 18th century case contained all the elements of proprietary estoppel
Cullen v Cullen- father and son worked in same business, son given money by father to buy his own land, father had mental problems, committed to mental hospital, transferred business and house to his wife, son built own house on land where family house situated, - father succeeded in trespass against the son, but couldn't grant an injunction
inwards v Baker father allowed his son to build a bungalow on the fathers land, had encouraged that he would be able to remain there for the rest of his life, no grant of land made when father died - court refused to allow the son to be evicted - due to expenditure by him on the land
as a sword
Pascoe v Turner P lived with T, lived as husband and wife, P started an affair, T stayed in the house, P told her house and everything in it was hers, T repaired and improved house to knowledge of P, 3 years later P asked T to leave - court held that the assurance and her reliance raised equity- transfer of a fee simple was necessary
promise to leave property by will
Smith v Halpin - father left property to son and wife, subject to rights of his daughters, son engaged, asked for land to build a house, told house was his after mother's day - extension built on family home with idea house would belong to plaintiff one day - doctrine did displace the will and son got full land
McCarron v McCarron SC recognised principle. - don't need a detailed discussed
possible restriction Taylor v Dickens elderly lady promised to leave her house to her gardener, made will, but changed it after she started finding gardeners will disturbing - allowed to change will
criticised due to the lack of equity given
McCarron work can be considered enough of a detriment