Lecture 7: Proprietary Estoppel {PE}:
Estoppel by promise: The Key Elements:
Representation or Assurance:
o An expectation by the claimant
o Inducement by the landowner
Objective reliance by the claimant on that assurance:
Detriment to the claimant:
Consequent unconscionability:
PE = Common form of which takes estoppel by promise, where land owner makes some form
of assurance or representation to claimant that they are going to have some right in some
respect of the land.
What’s the remedy for PE?
Satisfying the estoppel:
Court = have a discretion, to award remedy to claimant that is ‘the minimum equity to
do justice’ which may include:
o A person right;
o A property right; or
o Compensation
Court = prevent unconscionability from arising
So, what principles guide the court’s discretion in deciding what remedy to award?
Two approaches:
1) Performing the promise = Thorner v Major
Landowner to perform their promise, as established in the case above. In
order to ensure the claimant got what they deserved or minimum equity in
that case, after all those years of relying on the promise given by relative
the farm should be transferred to the claimant in that case.
Not an unusual remedy
2) Overcoming the detriment = Jennings v Rice
To give them some compensation for the disadvantage that assurance has
led to = established in the case above
3) A proportionate result: {Suggitt v Suggitt, Henry v Henry; Davies v Davies}: A
resort to a principle that the remedy should be proportionate to the circumstances
when looking at the assurance given and detriment that has been suffered should
be a balance achieved to do this minimum equity to do justice.
Jennings v Rice: Case Study:
Mrs Royale = landowner
Jennings [her part time Gardner] and the owner got older, Jennings did a
lot more unpaid work for her, over and above of what expected of a part
time Gardner = but why?
Various promises she would see him right; continued to work for her
unpaid
Court: Satisfied there was a claim to proprietary estoppel, Jennings
brought a claim to whole value of estate but pinned back to claim of her
house valued at £435,000.
, Court did not make an order to transfer house to Jennings, instead, they
awarded him £200,000 by a way of detriment for what he may have
suffered.
Robert Walker [56]: minimum equity to do justice; for this sort of
proportionate remedy taking circumstances into account looking at the
promise given, how certain? The detriment that had been suffered by
claimant and benefits they may have received as well as the detriment.
Henry v Henry:
o Made a quote that is used more often, “proportionality lies at the
heart of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel and permeates its every
application.” = Jonathan Parker [65]
o When court is looking to satisfy that estoppel looking at things in a
round and come to a proportionate result and balances the promise
made and the detriment that has been suffered. Cannot say what
remedy is, but we do have an idea in any case about sought of
factors court take into account in trying to reach that proportionate
remedy.
Contractual Expectations and Estoppel:
- What is the interaction between .2[1] and proprietary estoppel?
o S.2[5] LPA “nothing in this section, requirement for signed writing affects the
creation or operation of constructive trusts [nothing specific to PE] but law
commission did say, they expected PE to deal with unfair cases where s.2[1]
was not complied with.
o Estoppel? What do cases tell us of how courts have approached this
interaction?
Supreme Court case: Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row:
Miss LM – sole director of a company called Yeoman’s row
[owned with husband] owned development land in
Knightsbridge which they wanted to develop to make a profit
Entered an oral agreement with Mr C [developer] that if he
obtained planning permission for site, then he could buy the
land for £12mil in addition once developed, he could take 50%
of sale of certain units on site, if they amounted to over £24mil.
Did not comply with s.2[1] – Mr C did a lot of work, obtained
planning permission; YR refused to perform the oral
agreement, but wanted more money. [as he obtained planning
permission]
Mr C – claimed that the agreement should be enforced by
relying on PE [were representations as he could buy land for
£12mil if obtained planning permission, relied on that oral
agreement and acted to his detriment by spending time and
effort to obtain the permission, therefore Miss LM should be
stopped from claiming the voidability of agreement for failure
to comply with s.2[1].
Hold = refused to enforce the agreement based on PE.
Reasons:
o Mr C’s reliance on the oral agreement was not
reasonable; that he knew it was an oral arrangement
Estoppel by promise: The Key Elements:
Representation or Assurance:
o An expectation by the claimant
o Inducement by the landowner
Objective reliance by the claimant on that assurance:
Detriment to the claimant:
Consequent unconscionability:
PE = Common form of which takes estoppel by promise, where land owner makes some form
of assurance or representation to claimant that they are going to have some right in some
respect of the land.
What’s the remedy for PE?
Satisfying the estoppel:
Court = have a discretion, to award remedy to claimant that is ‘the minimum equity to
do justice’ which may include:
o A person right;
o A property right; or
o Compensation
Court = prevent unconscionability from arising
So, what principles guide the court’s discretion in deciding what remedy to award?
Two approaches:
1) Performing the promise = Thorner v Major
Landowner to perform their promise, as established in the case above. In
order to ensure the claimant got what they deserved or minimum equity in
that case, after all those years of relying on the promise given by relative
the farm should be transferred to the claimant in that case.
Not an unusual remedy
2) Overcoming the detriment = Jennings v Rice
To give them some compensation for the disadvantage that assurance has
led to = established in the case above
3) A proportionate result: {Suggitt v Suggitt, Henry v Henry; Davies v Davies}: A
resort to a principle that the remedy should be proportionate to the circumstances
when looking at the assurance given and detriment that has been suffered should
be a balance achieved to do this minimum equity to do justice.
Jennings v Rice: Case Study:
Mrs Royale = landowner
Jennings [her part time Gardner] and the owner got older, Jennings did a
lot more unpaid work for her, over and above of what expected of a part
time Gardner = but why?
Various promises she would see him right; continued to work for her
unpaid
Court: Satisfied there was a claim to proprietary estoppel, Jennings
brought a claim to whole value of estate but pinned back to claim of her
house valued at £435,000.
, Court did not make an order to transfer house to Jennings, instead, they
awarded him £200,000 by a way of detriment for what he may have
suffered.
Robert Walker [56]: minimum equity to do justice; for this sort of
proportionate remedy taking circumstances into account looking at the
promise given, how certain? The detriment that had been suffered by
claimant and benefits they may have received as well as the detriment.
Henry v Henry:
o Made a quote that is used more often, “proportionality lies at the
heart of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel and permeates its every
application.” = Jonathan Parker [65]
o When court is looking to satisfy that estoppel looking at things in a
round and come to a proportionate result and balances the promise
made and the detriment that has been suffered. Cannot say what
remedy is, but we do have an idea in any case about sought of
factors court take into account in trying to reach that proportionate
remedy.
Contractual Expectations and Estoppel:
- What is the interaction between .2[1] and proprietary estoppel?
o S.2[5] LPA “nothing in this section, requirement for signed writing affects the
creation or operation of constructive trusts [nothing specific to PE] but law
commission did say, they expected PE to deal with unfair cases where s.2[1]
was not complied with.
o Estoppel? What do cases tell us of how courts have approached this
interaction?
Supreme Court case: Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row:
Miss LM – sole director of a company called Yeoman’s row
[owned with husband] owned development land in
Knightsbridge which they wanted to develop to make a profit
Entered an oral agreement with Mr C [developer] that if he
obtained planning permission for site, then he could buy the
land for £12mil in addition once developed, he could take 50%
of sale of certain units on site, if they amounted to over £24mil.
Did not comply with s.2[1] – Mr C did a lot of work, obtained
planning permission; YR refused to perform the oral
agreement, but wanted more money. [as he obtained planning
permission]
Mr C – claimed that the agreement should be enforced by
relying on PE [were representations as he could buy land for
£12mil if obtained planning permission, relied on that oral
agreement and acted to his detriment by spending time and
effort to obtain the permission, therefore Miss LM should be
stopped from claiming the voidability of agreement for failure
to comply with s.2[1].
Hold = refused to enforce the agreement based on PE.
Reasons:
o Mr C’s reliance on the oral agreement was not
reasonable; that he knew it was an oral arrangement
