Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Proprietary Estoppel - Coggle Diagram

- - - - In Ireland, this rationale was followed in Naylor v Maher: p was beneficially entitled to the farm owned by a man who, it later transpired, was his biological father. Although the man had executed a will leaving the farm to his daughter and p’s sister, his earlier promises to p concerning the farm constituted assurances sufficient to give rise to an estoppel in p’s favour. Thorner v Major was accepted as persuasive authority relevant to this case.
      - Conditions applied:
        
        (i) look at effect of the words in the context they were made;
        
        (ii) do not apply the test in a unrealistic manner; and
        
        (iii) a statement can sometimes have 2 meanings.
- - - - It was found that unconscionability can mean;
        
        (i) jurisdiction in the sense of a basis for the existence of equitable estoppel in the first place;
        
        (ii) the context in which the reliance takes place;
        
        (iii) justifiability of the reliance;
        
        (iv) whether it is unconscionable to move to an inconsistent position;
        
        (v) whether ct ought to grant a remedy; and,
        
        (vi) what parameters aid ct in shaping the remedy.