Lecture 6 - Proprietary Estoppel:
What is estoppel?
Estoppel stops a party from denying a matter of fact or law. PE is relevant to the informal acquisition
of estates and interests in land. It can be a sword or a shield, unlike promissory estoppel. Proprietary
estoppel can give rise on its own to enforceable rights. I.e. you were promised something, you didn’t
get it, you can bring a cause for action.
How does it work? It protects a person who has acted in reliance on an expectation that they will
receive an interest in the landowner’s land, or a state and fee simple. It has its roots in equity and is
used to prevent unconscionable denial of rights, it will intervene (e.g. when the required formalities
are not met). It stops a person from enforcing their strict legal rights. It is underpinned by the notion
of conscientious dealing in relation to land. It is based on equitable principle that prevents a person
from insisting on his strict legal right.
Essentially, you were promised this thing, and you did all these things believing it, relying on my
promise and you didn’t get it, PE will step in and say you were promised this thing. We will enforce
the promise.
See Inwards v Baker (classical position in PE): son builds bungalow on fathers’ land. Dad dies
and leaves the land to a third party. Third party brings proceedings agsinst the son to recover
the land for the bungalow. PE arises because the father gave the son a belief he would have the
land.
MISTAKEN BELIEF
What if C made a mistake? Mistaken belief can be a successful claim, but you have to have acted to
your detriment. I.e. C must have expended some money or dome some act on the basis of the mistaken
belief. The mistaken belief usually has to be quite significant (e.g. building on land you thought you
owned). E.g. they have to have not stopped you from doing it.
Ramsden v Dyson (1886) LR 1 HL 129 - where a claimant acts upon a mistaken belief and the
other party does nothing to rectify the mistake, then PE may arise.
Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch D 96 – Fry J sets out 5 (criteria):
o Claimant must have made a mistake as to his legal rights
o C must have expended some money or done some act on the basis of this mistaken
belief
o D must know of the existence of his own right which is inconsistent with the right
claimed by C
o D must know of C’s mistaken belief in C’s rights
o D must either have encouraged C, either directly or by abstaining from asserting his
right.
This plays out in Taylor Tashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees – the test for when an estoppel will arise
was simplified. Still some disagreement as to whether the test has three elements or four:
‘if under an expectation created or encouraged by B that A shall have a certain interest in land,
thereafter, on the faith of such expectation and with the knowledge of B and without objection by
What is estoppel?
Estoppel stops a party from denying a matter of fact or law. PE is relevant to the informal acquisition
of estates and interests in land. It can be a sword or a shield, unlike promissory estoppel. Proprietary
estoppel can give rise on its own to enforceable rights. I.e. you were promised something, you didn’t
get it, you can bring a cause for action.
How does it work? It protects a person who has acted in reliance on an expectation that they will
receive an interest in the landowner’s land, or a state and fee simple. It has its roots in equity and is
used to prevent unconscionable denial of rights, it will intervene (e.g. when the required formalities
are not met). It stops a person from enforcing their strict legal rights. It is underpinned by the notion
of conscientious dealing in relation to land. It is based on equitable principle that prevents a person
from insisting on his strict legal right.
Essentially, you were promised this thing, and you did all these things believing it, relying on my
promise and you didn’t get it, PE will step in and say you were promised this thing. We will enforce
the promise.
See Inwards v Baker (classical position in PE): son builds bungalow on fathers’ land. Dad dies
and leaves the land to a third party. Third party brings proceedings agsinst the son to recover
the land for the bungalow. PE arises because the father gave the son a belief he would have the
land.
MISTAKEN BELIEF
What if C made a mistake? Mistaken belief can be a successful claim, but you have to have acted to
your detriment. I.e. C must have expended some money or dome some act on the basis of the mistaken
belief. The mistaken belief usually has to be quite significant (e.g. building on land you thought you
owned). E.g. they have to have not stopped you from doing it.
Ramsden v Dyson (1886) LR 1 HL 129 - where a claimant acts upon a mistaken belief and the
other party does nothing to rectify the mistake, then PE may arise.
Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch D 96 – Fry J sets out 5 (criteria):
o Claimant must have made a mistake as to his legal rights
o C must have expended some money or done some act on the basis of this mistaken
belief
o D must know of the existence of his own right which is inconsistent with the right
claimed by C
o D must know of C’s mistaken belief in C’s rights
o D must either have encouraged C, either directly or by abstaining from asserting his
right.
This plays out in Taylor Tashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees – the test for when an estoppel will arise
was simplified. Still some disagreement as to whether the test has three elements or four:
‘if under an expectation created or encouraged by B that A shall have a certain interest in land,
thereafter, on the faith of such expectation and with the knowledge of B and without objection by
