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