Estoppel
Promissory Estoppel
Types
Comparison between Promisory and Propreitary Estoppel
Promissory
Propretary
clash with doctrine of consideration
Coombe shield not sword, not a standalone action - so consideration not done away with - only invoked to defend a claim
pre-existing contractual relationship
Detriment
Proprietary estoppel
elements
arises in 3 main areas
imperfect gifts
common expectations
unilateral mistakes
Dillwyn v Llewyn
Inwards v Baker son built bungalow on representation, entitled to live there for rest of life
Pascoe v Turner he ran of with another woman, said property yours, she spent money on improving house and on mortgage - entitled to have it conveyed to her
Smyth v Halpin advised no need to build new house can extend family home instead, on death left house to sister instead - equity intervene
CF v JDF no estoppel arise that estragned wife could rely on - no representation - not sufficient to say allowed to happen or that 3rd parties say outcome likely
Wilmott v Barber 5 criteria to be met
unconsionability
equitable remedy invoked by person seeking protection from person seeking to enforce strict legal rights Jorden v Money
as it is an equitable remedy is discretionary
can't make clear and unambiguous promise to not rely on legal rights and than turnaround and rely on them
purpose
can make a promise or representation in certain circumstances binding Webb v Ireland
elements
promise or representation
relied on
to detriment
element of unfairness or unconsionability
origins
Hughes v Metroplitan Rail Company landlord wanted to forfeit lease as tenant didn't carry repairs required by lease, landlord had served a notice on tenant to do works (not done) but landlord had promised repairs could be deferred till negotiations over - negotiations broke down - held - strict legal rights won't be enforceable if inequitable
High Trees during world war 2, people evacuating London, agreement to accept lower rent, war over - held landlord not able to seek full rent as had accepted lower rent - can be used as a defence
Smith v Ireland approved Coombe
some doubt
Walton Stores may be part of a cause of action, if not cause itself
re JR promissory estoppel could give rise to cause in Ireland
GPS Ltd v Minister for Health followed shield not sword approach
traditionally
Ajayi v Briscoe traditionally a prerequisite
Crabb v Arun District Council denied necessity to show pre existing contract
not necessary
Revenue Commissioners v Moroney father transfering property to son, wanted to expedite process, paid consideration of 16k never intended to pay it - father died estate tried to claim it - son complete defence - father had represented would not seek it
Cullen v Cullen won holiday home, father had gone missing in mental hospital, permission given to erect holiday home on land, father wanted to remove when came back - estopped from going back on original promise to allow home to be installed - no contract but not allowed exercise legal title
Ajayi v Briscoe altering ones position due to reliance on promise may suffice
Daly v Minister for Marine unconsionable for one party to depart from position, statement or misrepresentation upon which other party acted to their detriment
Keane - altered position is better approach
proprietary can be used as a cause of action (sword and shield
Reliance
detriment
representation
cause of action by itself for creation of right or interest in land
rational
discourage unconsionable behaviour - can be extended beyond land to other property
McGuinnes can include provision of labour or other service
if legal owner represents will give to another, and other expends money or acts to detriment due to representation, legal owner may be ordered to convey property or give right to the other
Ramsden v Dyson one person makes mistake, other knows but refrains from correcting mistake
overriding element of unconsionability
assurance doesn't have to be express but done with intention that it be relied upon
CD v JF needs to be relatively clear or an inducement of some kind - not enought that allowed it to happen
Thorner v Major relative worked on farm for 30 years, oblique reference intended relative to inherit farm, will made but destroyed so died intestate - asssurance must be clear and unequivical - taking into account context
Brikom v Carr is it calculated to influence judgment of reasonable man
Thorner v Major did deceased intend for claimant to rely on the assurance
Basham not limited to expenditure
McCarron providing labour or service to alnd of another can amount to detriment - if for free or minimal compensation
Bracken v Byrne submitting planning application and discussions with builders not sufficient
Gillett v Holt not a narrow concept - can occur when property owners encourage others to act to their detriment
Naylor v Maher work for little or no remuneration on land - detriment and giving up opportunity
Father tried to convey land to son, unsuccessful, son thought land his so built house on it - gained equitable interest -as represenation made, relied upon it and to his detriment
parties consistently dealing with one another
expended money or done some act on mistaken belief
defendant knew he owned piece of land inconsistent with right claimed
plaintiff made mistake about legal rights
know of plaintiffs mistaken belief
encouraged it directly or indirectly
become very important to the doctrine
initial development
recent cases
Gillet v Holt
Jennings v Rice proportionality important - if claimants expectations are unrealistic or extravagant
Taylor v Liverpool Victoria court mentions unconsionabile - broader approach
unconsionability permeates throughout estoppel
left schol at 16, worked for 40 years, received assurances would inherit farm, relationship declined and was dismissed, court took a holistic approach -unconsionable for Gillet to not get property - had pursued education in relation to agriculture, lived on farm
McMahon becoming more important in Ireland
Turner v Jacob central question would it be unconsioanble to allow person to go back on promise
Cobbe v Yeoman Row
Thorner v Major Cobbe should be limited to commercial cases
Soutwell v Blackburn gave up secure tenancy in Manchester based on promise - entitled to compensation
Brennan v Knowles left school, given pocket money, treated like son, worked on farm - entitled to farm on trust
Naylor v Maher daughter left farm in will despite being promised to son, son entitled to rely on it - entitled to house - had to give up 150k given - that went to daughter otherwsie daughter gets nothing
important to establish precisely what you are looking for
agreement in principle, not in writing, plaintiff seeking planning permission, slow in getting it, got it, defendant wanted to renegotiate price - court held need elements of estoppel but unconsionability may play a role - not bound to give effect to oral agreement
commercial case