8650549
Description
Mind Map by Faith Akinyeye, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Faith Akinyeye
over 7 years ago
|
|
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.
- 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”.
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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”.
- 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
- Dixon:
- "It would be unconscionable for the defendant to relay on
lack of formality to defeat the C"
- "It would be unconscionable for the defendant to relay on
lack of formality to defeat the C"
- J Mee -
- Mcfarlane
- Nigel Gravells - "unconscionability alone, without detrimental
reliance on a representation is insufficient in itself to found
proprietary estoppel claim"
- 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"
- Griffiths : The C's reliance is irrevocable and binding
- The defence generates uncertainty and unpredictability as to
when it may arise
- The defence generates uncertainty and unpredictability as to
when it may arise
- Delany - Must ensure there is proportionality between the
expectation and the detriment.
- Dixon:
- Key Issues
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.