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