Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Proprietary Estoppel - Remedies - Coggle Diagram
Proprietary Estoppel - Remedies
Bars to a remedy
Claimant must 'come with clean hands'
Unreasonable delay in bringing an action under estoppel may bar a claim to a remedy - Voyce v Voyce (1991) 62 P & CR 290, where, on the facts, there was no unreasonable delay.
The fact that C has established an estoppel does not entitle them to any particular remedy.
It is up to the courts to decide, using their discretion, whether the estoppel requires a remedy and if so the type of remedy that would be appropriate to achieve justice
"The minimum equity to do justice to the plaintiff” - Crabb v Arun District Council [1975] 3 All ER 865
Transfer of the legal ownership of land
Court would order the legal owner to transfer their land to the claimant
In Dillwyn v Llewelyn and Pascoe v Turner, the legal owner was ordered to convey the fee simple in his house to the claimant.
In Gillett v Holt, the court ordered Holt to transfer the freehold of the farm they occupied to the claimant in part satisfaction of his estoppel interest.
Transfer of an undivided share in the land
Where land is held on trust, court may order one joint tenant to transfer their undivided share in the land to another in satisfaction.
Grant of a lease
Court may award a leasehold estate in satisfaction of proprietary estoppel - Siew Soon Wah v Yong Tong Hong
In Grant v Williams, a daughter who had lived for most of her life in her mother’s house and had cared for her and incurred expenditure improving the property on the basis of a representation that she would be entitled to live in it for the rest of her life was granted a long lease at a nominal rent, determinable on death, in satisfaction of her estoppel equity.
Right of occupancy
Court may stop short of awarding C full ownership of the property and may grant some form of occupancy
In Greasley v Cooke, the Court of Appeal held that the claimant should be entitled to remain in the house rent-free for as long as she wished.
In Matharu v Matharu, the Court of Appeal held that a claimant was entitled to ‘a ‘a licence … to remain in this house for her life or such shorter period as she may decide’.
Often rights of occupation virtually amount to the grant of a life interest
Following the introduction of TLATA 1996 courts may become more willing to utilize the equitable life interest as a means of satisfaction of an estoppel because prior to this act such a right would have tended to create a strict settlement under Settled Land Act 1925 and the unsatisfactory consequences of a strict settlement
Financial Compensation
In some cases courts have only awarded financial reimbursement
In Dodsworth v Dodsworth, the legal owner of a bungalow allowed the claimants, her brother and his wife, to live in it on their return from Australia. They spent £700 on improvements in the expectation that they would be able to remain in the bungalow as long as they wished. After a breakdown in the relationship between the parties, the Court of Appeal held that the claimants were not entitled to occupy rent-free for life, but were entitled to be repaid their outlay on improvements.
Court may award a charge over the property to the value of the improvements made - Unity Joint Stock Mutual Banking Association v King (1858) 25 Beav 72; Taylor v Taylor [1956] NZLR 99.
In Wayling v Jones, the Court of Appeal held that the claimant should be entitled to recover the proceeds of sale of the hotel that his partner had promised to leave him by will
In Jennings v Rice, the Court of Appeal held that a gardener who had acted to his detriment by looking after an elderly lady in reliance upon her assurance that she would ‘see to it’ that he would be all right in her will should receive £200,000 from her estate.
Grant of an easement
Where appropriate, the courts have held that a claimant is entitled to the grant of an easement over the land of the person estopped, as, for example, in ER Ives Investment Ltd v High and Crabb v Arun District Council.
The loss of an easement is also possible, as in Lester v Woodgate.
Imposition of a constructive trust
Courts have not yet awarded this as a remedy. However, no reason in principle why this would not be possible
C would receive an ownership of the interest in the property, in the form of a share of the beneficial ownership behind a trust of land
Lord Denning in Hussey v Palmer suggested his new model constructive trust (Discredited model)
In Thorner v Major,178 Lord Scott talked in terms of the overlap between constructive trusts and estoppel, and suggested that a set of facts which he agreed gave rise to a proprietary estoppel could also give rise to a ‘remedial constructive trust’.
This would be a remedial constructive trust arising at the date of judgement compared to the institutional constructive trust which arises before the judgment
No Remedy
In some cases the courts may find that a claimant does not require the award of any remedy at all in order to satisfy an estoppel equity because he has already received advantages which have fully satisfied his claim.