Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Topic 6: Equitable Estoppel Proprietary Estoppel (Imperfect Gifts (X…
Topic 6: Equitable Estoppel
Proprietary Estoppel
Proprietary Estoppel
Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management:
Lord Scott observed:
'
An estoppel bars C from asserting something that stands in teh way of some right claimed by the person entitled to the benefit of estoppel
Estoppel becomes a 'proprietary' estoppel if the right claimed is a proprietary right i.e. a right to or over property
If Z seeks to raise proprietary estoppel against X he must identify
The proprietary right he is claiming
The content of the estoppel
i.e. what it is that X would be estopped from doing that is inconsistent with that right
How does PE arise?
Re Bashman
:
Where one person has acted to his detriment
On the faith of a belief, which was known to and encouraged by another person that he has or is going to be given a right in or over property
they cannot insist on his strict legal rights if to do so would be inconsistent with other's belief
Assurance
Reliance
Detriment
Biehler: The basis of the docrtrine of proprietary estoppel is 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
Worthington: Proprietary estoppel operates when property owners encourage others to act to their detriment in the belief they will be granted an interest in the owner's property
Assurance
May be express or implied
May be implied from circumstances of the case
CF v JDF
: McGuinness J for SC said there must have been a reasomably clear direct assurance
'there must actually be a promise, or at least a reasonably clear direct representation or inducement of some kind'
Conscious Silence
Above casts doubt on conscious silence being able to constitute an assurance
Distinguished
Salvation Army Trustee v Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council:
A case where 'conscious silence' followed a period where specific and detailed representations had been made to the P on which it had strongly relied
HWR- at odds with
Gill v Woodall
: stated that a representation could be sufficient to found a proprietary estopppel even if not express, but made in oblique and allusive terms as long as given the background to the matter he person to whom it was made understood a definite plan e.g. leave the property to him
Reliance
Proving Z relied on Z's assurance entails proving Z did or failed to do something
as a result of X's assurance
Must be proof of causal nexus between X's assurance and what Z did or failed to do
Detriment
Typically
Detriment will have involved expenditure of money by Z on X's property
However
Financial detriment is not the only type of detriment for purposes of PE
McCarron v McCarron
: SC- Murphy J suggested the provision of Z's own labour or services re X's property can constitute detriment too
Must be substantial in nature
Bracken v Byrne
and
McDonagh v Denton
: court respectively set out hat he detriment suffered must be substantial in nature
Bracken: the only detriment was making planning application and brief discussions with a builder which was not enough to establish estoppel
McDonagh: P on foot of his actions was now being sued for specific performance by a third party. Held this was a substantial detriment
Naylor v Maher
: O'Keefe concluded the work done by the P over many years on he deceased's far often for little or no pay amounted to 'serious and substantial detriment'
Not necessary D aware
Joyce v Epsom and Ewell Borough Council
: Not necessary D be aware of detriment suffered by the claimant in order for a claim to succeed
It was not an invariable requirement that the person encouraging necessarily mus know exctly what the person encouraged might have actually done in reliance on the encouragement
Remedy
How far should court go when a proprietary estoppel is successfully raised?
Should it give claimant everything he expected to receive
or should it simply compensate him for detriment suffered?
No clear view emerges from he case law
Naylor v Maher
: Court seemed to apply the expectation-based approach in finding that the P should get lands
Coyle v Finnegan
: This was scaled back to remuneration from lands i.e. commensurate to the disadvantage suffered
Appear the court may start on an expectation based approach but with modification when necessary
Imperfect Gifts
X transfers propery to Z for no consideration
Most obvious way X can realise such intention is by transferring property directly to X
This arrangement is a gift
X is donor/Z is donee
For gift to be enforcible at the suit of Z, X must transfer the property to X
in the way the law requires to make Z the owner of it
If he wants to make the gift upon death= means of a will
Inter vivos= Real property- writing/ personal property= mere delivery
Until such transfer takes place, the gift is imperfect
General rule: equity does not enforce an imperfect gift
HOWEVER IN SOME INSTANCE EQUITY MAY ENFORCE AN IMPERFECT GIFT
Dillwyn v Llewelyn
: P's father promised to transfer land to P
P built house on land
He did this w father's knowledge and consen
Informal memorandum showed it was P's Father's intention to give the land to P
Issue: Memorandum not sufficient to transfer the land to P in way the law required to make him owner of it
-Gift imperfect
Father by will devised the land on trust o other parties
Held: H of Ls- The fee simple should have been transferred to P
The promise of a gift had been made (assurance)
On the strength thereof (reliance)
with the father's knowledge, P had incurred substantial expenditure on the land (detriment0
Stressed equity would not usually perfect an imperfect gift
But that the father's acts subsequent to the promise gave rise to the claim
The promise coupled with he detrimental reliance thereon, gave rise to a claim
Cullen v Cullen:
Above is authority for proposition that a person claiming under a voluntary agreement will not be assisted by a court of equity but that subsequent acts of the donor may give the donee a ground of claim which he did not acquire from he original gift
Pascoe v Turner
: Parties lived together for a considerable period of time in P's house
P left to live with another woman
Assured D that she could remain in house and it would henceforth be hers
D carried out repairs and improvements on house
Issue: P sued for possession
Held: D entitled to a conveyance of fee simple
Smyth v Halpin
P asked father to provide him with a site on which he could build a house
Father said that was unnecessary, as P would have the family house after his mother's death
Suggested P build an extension to it (assurance)
P did his (reliance and detriment)
Issue: By his will father left the house to his wife for life with the remainder to his daughter
After father's death, P sued for the reversionary interest
Held: P's clear expectation was that he would have a fee simple interest in the house
Directed that conveyance of same be made to P in order o protect his equity