Proprietary Estoppel

DEFINITION: P.E is a defence that arises in circumstances where the land owner expressly or impliedly gives ASSURANCE to the other whom of which RELIES on it to their DETRIMENT.
Modern Requirements: As per Taylor v Liverpool Victoria Trustees - It must be established that there was an assurance, reliance and detriment in circumstances in which would be unconscionable to deny a remedy to C.
1. ASSURANCE: 1) Express or implied in conduct - Dann v Spurrier [1802] In Thorner - " silence serves as the element of assurance.”2) Must be 'clear enough' - Thorner v Major [2009] In Uglow v Uglow [2004] PE cases consider whether the D “by his conduct ... created the [C's] expectation”.
2. RELIANCE: 1) Must be reasonable reliance 2) Doesn’t matter whether D intended C to rely 3) Doesn’t matter if dual motive for reliance - Campbell v Griffin [2001]
3. DETRIMENT: Needn't be in relation to the property - Jennings v Rice [2003]; Doesn't matter if there is some benefit - Southwell v Blackburn [2014]
4. UNCONSCIONABILITY: 1) Wills repeated assurances - Murphy v Burrows [2004] vs. Thorner 2) Contracts - Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] vs. Wombwell v James [2015] 3) C must come w/ clean hands - Murphy v Rayner [2011]
Old Requirements: 1) C must have made a mistake on matters of legal rights over land 2) true landowner must know of the C's mistaken belief 3) C must have expended money/ action of the mistaken belief 4) Landowner must have encouraged the expenditure by the C directly or through abstinence 5) Landowners must be aware of own rights that are inconsistent with the alleged rights
ACADEMIC OPINION
1. Dixon:
  1. "It would be unconscionable for the defendant to relay on lack of formality to defeat the C"
2. J Mee -
3. Mcfarlane
4. Nigel Gravells - "unconscionability alone, without detrimental reliance on a representation is insufficient in itself to found proprietary estoppel claim"
5. Pawlowski - In both the cases of Gissing and Edwards,"equity acts on the conscience of the legal owner to prevent him from acting in an unconscionable manner by defeating the C's belief"
6. Griffiths : The C's reliance is irrevocable and binding
  1. The defence generates uncertainty and unpredictability as to when it may arise
7. Delany - Must ensure there is proportionality between the expectation and the detriment.
Key Issues

Nächster

Proprietary Estoppel

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von Faith Akinyeye vor mehr als 7 Jahre