Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Estoppel - Coggle Diagram

- - - - 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
  - - - Ajayi v Briscoe traditionally a prerequisite
      - Crabb v Arun District Council denied necessity to show pre existing contract
    - - 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
- - - - 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
    - - McGuinnes can include provision of labour or other service
      - 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
    - - 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
  - - - Dillwyn v Llewyn
        
        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
        
        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
      - 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
      - parties consistently dealing with one another
    - - Wilmott v Barber 5 criteria to be met
        
        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
      - Ramsden v Dyson one person makes mistake, other knows but refrains from correcting mistake
  - - - Gillet v Holt
        
        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
      - Jennings v Rice proportionality important - if claimants expectations are unrealistic or extravagant
      - Taylor v Liverpool Victoria court mentions unconsionabile - broader approach
      - 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
        
        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
      - 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