Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Proprietary Estoppel - Coggle Diagram

- - - - AP
      - Short leases ≤ 3 yrs
      - resulting/constructive trust
      - proprietary estoppel (the last resort)
        
        Taylor Fashion v Victoria
  - - - LRA s 116
      - you can register this
        
        fill unilateral/agreed notice form, enter on register
        
        if the landowner sells --> new owner will be bound by estoppel
- - - - can then use TLATA
      - bind 3rd parties
    - - Arif v Anwar: C claim CT and estoppel
        
        judge award estoppel
        
        prob result oriented
      - a lot is commercial rather than home
  - - - Stack v Dowden
      - payment cases
  - - - but in lots of CICT cases intention is sus
- - - - Sledmore v Dolby
    - - Arif v Anwar
      - Davis v Davis (Cinderella)
      - Guest v Guest: son get payoff
    - - Parker v Parker: elder brother live in castle
    - - Joyce v Epsom and Ewell Borough Council: give easement
      - Pascoe v. Turner: the entire freehold
  - - - minority (lord leggatt): compensate detriment
      - majority: convenient starting place--> expectation
        
        but overriding purpose = alleviate uncon
        
        its flexible, respond to facts
      - expectation = son got farm
        
        actal remedy
        
        son wait parent die, get farm
        
        OR /the D can choose to sell farm, pay him off
        
        quite exceptional, loser choose
        
        equitable flexible nature
    - - Purpose of estoppel = satisfy expectation
        
        Gillet v Holt: get what was promised
        
        Joyce v Epsom and Ewell Borough Council: promised & get right of way
        
        almost like contract
      - what C get is measured by detri
        
        like tort
        
        often lead to money
        
        Davis v Davis, Arif v Anwar
      - do min necessary to acheive equity b/ party
        
        Crabb v. Arun DC
        
        what is "min necessary"?
        
        Davis: proportionately (strength of promise vs. amount of detri, "sliding scale")
        
        Jennings v Rice: alleviate the uncon
    - - Guest v Guest
    - - Guest, Jennings, Crabb, Davis v Davis
      - often exceed detriment tho
- - - - Court: NO, cant circumvent formality
    - - Yaxley v Gotts
        
        shielded by constructive trust (CT no need writing
        --> estoppel dont need)
        
        Dixon: made up reasoning
  - - - LPA s2 not in play
      - other formality rules abt trust also not in play
    - - standalone equitable principle
        
        not let uncon to deny property right
        
        Flower mix v site development: attempted written contract but failed
        
        estoppel is available
        
        the only explanation = uncon
        
        dangerously close to circumvent formality
        
        Kinane v Conteh: not signed
        
        Pathway to Relief v Ali
        
        failed contract isnt enuf
        
        cant use estoppel
      - formality rules not engaged, not avoided
- - - - if property right --> bind C
      - if license --> dont bind
    - - s 116: equity by estoppel = proprietary
        
        uncrystalized estoppel/inchoate equity
        
        will bind new owner C
        
        normal rules of land regis
        
        if C not purchaser, C bound by all proprietary rihgt
        
        LRA s 28
        
        if C is purchaser --> equity by estoppel binding IF
        
        register by means of notice
        
        overriding interest by AP
        
        Lloyd v Dugdale
        
        would bind new owner if AP
        
        Henry v Henry (privy)
        
        estoppel did bind new owner as overriding interest
      - estoppel not yet satisfied by claim valid --> equity by estoppel
  - - - para 2 sched 3 - overriding interest
      - equity by estoppel overreached?
        
        normal equitable interest under trust --> overreach (Flegg)
        
        Mortgage express v Lambert: possibly
        
        cannot be overreached cuz you can protect by notice
        
        cant put notice for co-ownership
- - - - e.g. what did landowner say?
    - - Assurance by the LO
        
        factual question
        
        Any form (mostly oral)
        
        Guest v Guest: dad--> son
        
        Gillet v Holt: come work w me ill make sure ur ok
        
        implied from conduct
        
        Thorner v Major: never explicit, just behavior
        
        written assurance (not legally enforceable)
        
        Flower Mix v Site Developments
        
        not identified land right
        
        Kinane v Conteh
        
        not signed by all
        
        does NOT automatically --> estoppel
        
        provided that it dont sidestep statutory formalities
        
        s 2 LPA 1989
        
        Herbert v Doyle
        
        Howe v Gossop
        
        Cannot be license
        
        West End Commercial v Trocadero
        
        abt proprietary rights, not license
        
        dont need to identify specific property right
        
        Thorner v Major
        
        as long as "certain enuf" (Lord Hoffman)
        
        NOT a contractual type promise
        
        C reasonably believes assurance --> use of land
        
        from C's perspective
        
        cannot escape estoppel if L doesnt mean it
        
        someone w ostensible authority other than LO
        
        equal to LO making it
        
        what if 2 owner, 1 owner assur?
        
        estoppel out of the promisor's share
      - Reliance by the claimant
        
        Timing
        
        if detri is before assur, CANNOT be relied
        
        ongoing assurance: Gillet or Guest
        
        detri might be before assur - thats ok
        
        action needs to be respones to Assur
        
        No other explanation
        
        Greasley v Cooke
        
        it is up to the LO to rebut
        
        inherent in the gillet holistic approach
        
        assume reli IF no other explanation for C's conduct
        
        Can have double motive
        
        "they would have done it anyway?"
        
        Ottey v Grundy
        
        C was assurer's partner, "cuz she love him"?
        
        the existence of "double motive" DONT destroy reli
        
        1 more item...
        
        Campbell v Griffin - general good will
      - Detriment by the claimant
        
        doing smtg you wouldnt otherwise have done
        
        any form
        
        Gillet - stay working on farm
        
        Lothian v Dixon the ppl moved into the hotel
        
        Thorner v Major: turned down other jobs
        
        Ottey v Grundy: Ms Ottey give up carer
        
        Jennings v Rice: took care of the lady
        
        DONT have to related to property
        
        Ottey: stay and look after him
        
        Gillet: working on farm
        
        Guest v Guest: commit time to work on farm
        
        Davis v Davis (cinderella): 1/3 sister stayed and took care of parents
        
        detriment not property related
        
        can still be detri even if C benefited
        
        Gillet: Mr Gillet benefited from farm, but sacrifice time
        
        gain is NOT bar to detri
        
        Sledmore v Dalby
        
        no detri - C got everything
        
        ( got rent free accommodation)
        
        it must not be "merely minimal"
        
        Century UK v Clibbery
        
        race horse, detri=record the race
        
        NO estoppel cuz detri merely minimal
      - Unconscionability
        
        Guest v Guest
        
        Gillet v Holt
        
        The reason why assurance/reliance/detriment --> estoppel is cuz of unconsionability
        
        Cobbe v Yeomans
        
        LO-->builder to get permission, LO change mind
        
        NO unconscionability - parties took risk
        
        Assu/Rel/Detri NOT enuf
        
        need all Assu/Rel/Detri+Uncon
        
        where Assur/Reli/Detri but NO uncon
        
        Thorner v Major
        
        uncle-->david: if i die u have farm
        
        estoppel can be rights in the future
        
        vs. constructive trust (now
        
        HoL: estoppel claim succeed
        
        Jennings v Rice
        
        at the heart of the doctrine
        
        3 possible elements
        
        look at all circumstances including C's conduct
        
        Wayling v Jones
        
        overall assessment: is it uncon for C to be denied
        
        C's behavior= important factor
        
        Yeo v Wilson
        
        2 more items...
        
        Murray v Guinness
        
        Ottey v Grundy
        
        "broad brush" approach to uncon
        
        comes from Gillet
        
        the withdrawal of promise after detri reli
        
        uncon since LO didnt fulfil assur after C's detri reli
        
        dont cover all situations tho
        
        e.g. offer to sell house, change mind
        
        2 more items...
        
        formality of transaction
        
        LO misled C (explicit/implied)
        
        requirement not met
        
        LO: "no need for formality"
        
        would explain cobbe v yeoman
        
        also explain why no uncon in house sale offer case
        
        e.g. AG HK v Humphries
        
        no estoppel - both knew should be in contract
        
        e.g. LO make promise to put in will, then change it
        
        doesnt explain all
        
        Gillet v Holt, cuz no promise abt formality
        
        rely on needing formality
        
        Yaxley v Gotts
        
        Y's land, G say transfer to me, I'll build, u can live
        
        1 more item...
        
        none perfect
      - Gillet v Holt: look at these elements holistically
        
        e.g. if v strong Assur, court easy to find detri/reli/uncon