LAND LAW PQ STRUCTURE – PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL:
STRUCTURE:
• “Raise the equity” – the 4 elements of assurance, reliance, detriment and unconscionability are present
- Establishing that someone is entitled to proprietary interest or proprietary rights
• “Satisfy the equity” – the remedy that should be awarded.
- Second part is how the equity should be satisfied.
à PE can provide a defence to an action by a landowner who seeks to enforce his or her strict rights against
someone who has been informally promised some right or liberty over the land.
Key Concepts:
• Bare Licence – permission to use or occupy land, but it does not grant any proprietary rights. It is
typically revocable and can be terminated at will by the landowner.
• Contractual Licence – permission to use or occupy the land granted in exchange for valuable
consideration, such as money or services.
- If the terms of the contract are breached, the licensee may sue for damages.
- E.g., a person given a contractual license to use land for a fee has enforceable rights to use the
land, and if these rights are breached, they can seek damages.
Common Law Position on Contractual Licences:
King v. David Allen & Sons [1916]:
• K granted permission to DA to display advertisements on the walls of a cinema. The cinema was leased
to a third party who wanted to stop the adverts.
HELD:
- Licence was not enforceable against the third party as licences create personal rights that do not
bind successors in title.
Clore v. Theatrical Properties Ltd [1936]:
• C had an agreement with owner of theatre to sell refreshments, described as a lease. The theatre was then
sold to a new owner who wished to end this arrangement.
HELD:
- Agreement was not a lease, but a licence, which conferred a personal right that was not
enforceable against the new owner.
Dennings Intervention – Equitable Proprietary Licences:
à idea that licence + equity = proprietary character which can bind successors unless purchaser for value
without notice.
Errington v Errington & Woods [1952]:
• Father buys house for son and daughter-in-law to live in. Pays £250 deposit; mortgage of £500 in his
name. Tells daughter-in-law the house will be her property when mortgage is paid. D pays all
instalments, father dies, widow tries to evict D.
HELD:
- No tenancy at will – once the couple acted on the fathers promise by paying, it couldn’t be
revoked.
- They had a licence with an equitable right to remain while instalments were paid.
- Equity would enforce the licence.
à Per Lord Denning – ‘This infusion of equity means that contractual licences now have a force and
validity of their own and cannot be revoked in breach of the contract. Neither the licensor nor anyone who
claims through him [ie third parties/successors in title] can disregard the contract except a purchaser for
value without notice’.
- Licence became binding in equity once the couple relied on it.
- The licence holder’s position was equitable and enforceable against all except bona fide
purchasers for value without notice.
, Binions v Evans [1972]:
• Widow of estate worker was promised she could live in a cottage for life. Owners sold land to new
buyer; contract stated sale was ‘subject to the tenancy of Mrs Evans’. Buyers tried to evict her.
HELD:
- Purchaser took subject to the existing licence. Buyers held the property on constructive trust for
Evans, based on equitable principles.
à (judgement) – ‘a person who acquires land expressly subject to a contractual licence is bound by the
licence’
- Purchaser took land with notice of the occupier’s rights = equity will enforce.
Ashburn Anstalt v. Arnold [1989] Ch 1 (CA):
• D sold lease to Matlodge, M sold to Cavendish, then sold to Legal, then to C. Clause 5 said D could
remain 7 months rent-free, subject to 1 quarters notice. D argued they had a lease or, alternatively, a
licence binding on C. C argued for possession.
HELD:
- D HAD LEASE – exclusive possession and certain term meant a tenancy, even if no rent, lease is
an overriding interest via actual occupation so binding on C.
à Per Lord Denning – ‘a mere contractual licence to occupy land is not binding’
à’before Errington the law…rested on an important and intelligible distinction between contractual
obligations…and proprietary rights which, by definition, did’.
à ‘the far-reaching statement of principle in Errington…was made without reference to authorities…and
per incuriam’.
Land Law PQ for Proprietary estoppel:
(a) Substance – Firstly, are the 4 elements present to raise an equity under proprietary estoppel?
Secondly, apply the test in Guest v Guest to determine how the equity will be satisfied.
(b) Formalities – No formalities are needed.
(c) Priority/Registration – Which priority rule applies? Is the right enforceable under LRA 2002?
SUBSTANCE:
à Assurance, reliance, detriment, responsibility.
(a) Assurance:
à landowner must have made some kind of assurance to the claimant that either the landowner would
refrain from exercising his or her strict legal rights over the land or, more commonly, that the claimant might
have some present or future right or use over that land.
Passive Assurance:
à C holds a mistaken belief in their interest in the land, and the true owner fails to correct it.
Willmott v. Barber [1880]:
• ‘The plaintiff must have made a mistake as to his legal rights…the possessor of the legal right, must
have encouraged the plaintiff in his expenditure of money or in the other acts which he has done…by
abstaining from asserting his legal right’.
Active Assurance – VERBAL DECLARATION:
Pascoe v Turner [1979]:
• P bought house in name for himself and T to live in as a couple. After P left her for diff woman, he
verbally assured her that the house was hers and everything in it. T remained in property and refurbished
it using all her savings. P sought repossession of the property.
HELD:
STRUCTURE:
• “Raise the equity” – the 4 elements of assurance, reliance, detriment and unconscionability are present
- Establishing that someone is entitled to proprietary interest or proprietary rights
• “Satisfy the equity” – the remedy that should be awarded.
- Second part is how the equity should be satisfied.
à PE can provide a defence to an action by a landowner who seeks to enforce his or her strict rights against
someone who has been informally promised some right or liberty over the land.
Key Concepts:
• Bare Licence – permission to use or occupy land, but it does not grant any proprietary rights. It is
typically revocable and can be terminated at will by the landowner.
• Contractual Licence – permission to use or occupy the land granted in exchange for valuable
consideration, such as money or services.
- If the terms of the contract are breached, the licensee may sue for damages.
- E.g., a person given a contractual license to use land for a fee has enforceable rights to use the
land, and if these rights are breached, they can seek damages.
Common Law Position on Contractual Licences:
King v. David Allen & Sons [1916]:
• K granted permission to DA to display advertisements on the walls of a cinema. The cinema was leased
to a third party who wanted to stop the adverts.
HELD:
- Licence was not enforceable against the third party as licences create personal rights that do not
bind successors in title.
Clore v. Theatrical Properties Ltd [1936]:
• C had an agreement with owner of theatre to sell refreshments, described as a lease. The theatre was then
sold to a new owner who wished to end this arrangement.
HELD:
- Agreement was not a lease, but a licence, which conferred a personal right that was not
enforceable against the new owner.
Dennings Intervention – Equitable Proprietary Licences:
à idea that licence + equity = proprietary character which can bind successors unless purchaser for value
without notice.
Errington v Errington & Woods [1952]:
• Father buys house for son and daughter-in-law to live in. Pays £250 deposit; mortgage of £500 in his
name. Tells daughter-in-law the house will be her property when mortgage is paid. D pays all
instalments, father dies, widow tries to evict D.
HELD:
- No tenancy at will – once the couple acted on the fathers promise by paying, it couldn’t be
revoked.
- They had a licence with an equitable right to remain while instalments were paid.
- Equity would enforce the licence.
à Per Lord Denning – ‘This infusion of equity means that contractual licences now have a force and
validity of their own and cannot be revoked in breach of the contract. Neither the licensor nor anyone who
claims through him [ie third parties/successors in title] can disregard the contract except a purchaser for
value without notice’.
- Licence became binding in equity once the couple relied on it.
- The licence holder’s position was equitable and enforceable against all except bona fide
purchasers for value without notice.
, Binions v Evans [1972]:
• Widow of estate worker was promised she could live in a cottage for life. Owners sold land to new
buyer; contract stated sale was ‘subject to the tenancy of Mrs Evans’. Buyers tried to evict her.
HELD:
- Purchaser took subject to the existing licence. Buyers held the property on constructive trust for
Evans, based on equitable principles.
à (judgement) – ‘a person who acquires land expressly subject to a contractual licence is bound by the
licence’
- Purchaser took land with notice of the occupier’s rights = equity will enforce.
Ashburn Anstalt v. Arnold [1989] Ch 1 (CA):
• D sold lease to Matlodge, M sold to Cavendish, then sold to Legal, then to C. Clause 5 said D could
remain 7 months rent-free, subject to 1 quarters notice. D argued they had a lease or, alternatively, a
licence binding on C. C argued for possession.
HELD:
- D HAD LEASE – exclusive possession and certain term meant a tenancy, even if no rent, lease is
an overriding interest via actual occupation so binding on C.
à Per Lord Denning – ‘a mere contractual licence to occupy land is not binding’
à’before Errington the law…rested on an important and intelligible distinction between contractual
obligations…and proprietary rights which, by definition, did’.
à ‘the far-reaching statement of principle in Errington…was made without reference to authorities…and
per incuriam’.
Land Law PQ for Proprietary estoppel:
(a) Substance – Firstly, are the 4 elements present to raise an equity under proprietary estoppel?
Secondly, apply the test in Guest v Guest to determine how the equity will be satisfied.
(b) Formalities – No formalities are needed.
(c) Priority/Registration – Which priority rule applies? Is the right enforceable under LRA 2002?
SUBSTANCE:
à Assurance, reliance, detriment, responsibility.
(a) Assurance:
à landowner must have made some kind of assurance to the claimant that either the landowner would
refrain from exercising his or her strict legal rights over the land or, more commonly, that the claimant might
have some present or future right or use over that land.
Passive Assurance:
à C holds a mistaken belief in their interest in the land, and the true owner fails to correct it.
Willmott v. Barber [1880]:
• ‘The plaintiff must have made a mistake as to his legal rights…the possessor of the legal right, must
have encouraged the plaintiff in his expenditure of money or in the other acts which he has done…by
abstaining from asserting his legal right’.
Active Assurance – VERBAL DECLARATION:
Pascoe v Turner [1979]:
• P bought house in name for himself and T to live in as a couple. After P left her for diff woman, he
verbally assured her that the house was hers and everything in it. T remained in property and refurbished
it using all her savings. P sought repossession of the property.
HELD:
