Proprietary estoppel: Yeoman’s Row Management v Cobbe- An oral
agreement for the purchase of land that does not
Definition of proprietary estoppel: satisfy s.2 (1) Law of Property (Miscellaneous
X the owner of land, expressly or impliedly gives an Provisions) Act 1989 cannot usually generate a
assurance to Y respecting present or future rights in proprietary estoppel claim
land and Y relies on that assurance, acting to his Can an assurance be revoked?
detriment Taylor v Dickens
Proprietary estoppel used to depend on the proof of Reliance:
five probanda under Willmot v Barber
Re Basham- The claimant must show that he has
a. C must have made a mistake as to his legal rights; changed his position in reliance on the representation
b. C must have spent money or done some act on the faith made by the owner of the land
of his mistaken belief; Gillet v Holt- There must also be a causal link
between the representation and the change of
c. D, as holder of the legal right, must know of the position
existence of his own right which is inconsistent with the right The claimant need not have altered his position
claimed by the claimant... exclusively in reliance on the representation
Greasley v Cooke- The change of position can either
d. D must know of the claimant's mistaken belief; and be quantified in financial or non financial terms or in
e. D must have encouraged the claimant in his expenditure contribution of labour
Re Basham- The detriment may be suffered by
of money or the other acts performed, either directly or by
abstaining from asserting his legal right. someone other than the claimant- e.g. the claimant’s
husband
Wilmot probanda were replaced in Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Coombes v Smith- Inconvenience or altered lifestyle
with three elements: will not represent detriment or change of position
Greasley v Cooke- The burden of proof lies with the
A representation (or assurance of rights) claimant to show that the representation has been
Reliance (or a change of position) made and as a result altered their position
Detriment (or unconscionable conduct) Greasley v Cooke- Once a representation has been
The most important question to ask in proprietary made and the claimant has shown that he altered his
estoppel is whether it would be unconscionable for a position, inferring that he acted in reliance on the
landowner to deny a right to the claimant where he promise, the burden of proof shifts to the landowner
has allowed or encouraged another to assume to his to show that there was no reliance on their promise
detriment Wayling v Jones- There will be no reliance only when
it can be shown that the claimant would have
Representation/Assurance:
incurred detriment completely irrespective of the
Inwards v Baker- Must relate to a present or future defendant’s conduct. The fact that other matters
interest in land of the promisor influenced the claimant will not defeat a claim
Ramsden v Dyson- A representation may be made Campbell v Griffin - ‘The promises relied upon do not
expressly or impliedly have to be the sole inducement for the conduct: it is
The representation need not be made in terms of a sufficient if they are an inducement.’
specific type of interest (e.g. an equitable estate),
Detriment:
merely a general interest in land
Pascoe v Turner- Representation must be clear and The represented must be shown to be
unequivocal. Claims will be rejected if they are simply unconscionably disadvantaged by relying on the
gratuitous promises or are excessively vague representation
Thorner v Major- Whether a representation is clear Gillet v Holt- In recent cases, the courts generally
and unequivocal will depend on the context of the seek proof of both detrimental reliance by the
assurance. Proprietary estoppel can be held where claimant and proof that the landowner is acting
there is a continuing pattern of conduct over a unconscionably in seeking to enforce his strict legal
significant period of time rights
Gillet v Holt- Promises made in respect of gifts under Detriment may take any form so long as it is not
a will are enforceable because although the testator minimal or trivial. It may take the form of
can always revoke the will before death, the improvements to the land, but detriment need not
claimant’s right will crystallise into a property right as relate to the land at all: it could be support or
soon as the claimant has acted to their detriment assistance given to the landowner
Gillet cont- A claim to rights is usually upheld where Gillet v Holt- Detriment can arise in cases where the
the testator’s promises are very clear, made in front claimant has derived some benefit from the
of witnesses and have been relied on by the claimant landowner
over a long period of time
Crabb v Arun DC- A representation can be made by Nature of the rights arising under proprietary estoppel:
silence. The owner does not have to be aware of the
specific act of reliance by the claimant Proprietary estoppel entitles the claimant to equitable relief.
agreement for the purchase of land that does not
Definition of proprietary estoppel: satisfy s.2 (1) Law of Property (Miscellaneous
X the owner of land, expressly or impliedly gives an Provisions) Act 1989 cannot usually generate a
assurance to Y respecting present or future rights in proprietary estoppel claim
land and Y relies on that assurance, acting to his Can an assurance be revoked?
detriment Taylor v Dickens
Proprietary estoppel used to depend on the proof of Reliance:
five probanda under Willmot v Barber
Re Basham- The claimant must show that he has
a. C must have made a mistake as to his legal rights; changed his position in reliance on the representation
b. C must have spent money or done some act on the faith made by the owner of the land
of his mistaken belief; Gillet v Holt- There must also be a causal link
between the representation and the change of
c. D, as holder of the legal right, must know of the position
existence of his own right which is inconsistent with the right The claimant need not have altered his position
claimed by the claimant... exclusively in reliance on the representation
Greasley v Cooke- The change of position can either
d. D must know of the claimant's mistaken belief; and be quantified in financial or non financial terms or in
e. D must have encouraged the claimant in his expenditure contribution of labour
Re Basham- The detriment may be suffered by
of money or the other acts performed, either directly or by
abstaining from asserting his legal right. someone other than the claimant- e.g. the claimant’s
husband
Wilmot probanda were replaced in Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Coombes v Smith- Inconvenience or altered lifestyle
with three elements: will not represent detriment or change of position
Greasley v Cooke- The burden of proof lies with the
A representation (or assurance of rights) claimant to show that the representation has been
Reliance (or a change of position) made and as a result altered their position
Detriment (or unconscionable conduct) Greasley v Cooke- Once a representation has been
The most important question to ask in proprietary made and the claimant has shown that he altered his
estoppel is whether it would be unconscionable for a position, inferring that he acted in reliance on the
landowner to deny a right to the claimant where he promise, the burden of proof shifts to the landowner
has allowed or encouraged another to assume to his to show that there was no reliance on their promise
detriment Wayling v Jones- There will be no reliance only when
it can be shown that the claimant would have
Representation/Assurance:
incurred detriment completely irrespective of the
Inwards v Baker- Must relate to a present or future defendant’s conduct. The fact that other matters
interest in land of the promisor influenced the claimant will not defeat a claim
Ramsden v Dyson- A representation may be made Campbell v Griffin - ‘The promises relied upon do not
expressly or impliedly have to be the sole inducement for the conduct: it is
The representation need not be made in terms of a sufficient if they are an inducement.’
specific type of interest (e.g. an equitable estate),
Detriment:
merely a general interest in land
Pascoe v Turner- Representation must be clear and The represented must be shown to be
unequivocal. Claims will be rejected if they are simply unconscionably disadvantaged by relying on the
gratuitous promises or are excessively vague representation
Thorner v Major- Whether a representation is clear Gillet v Holt- In recent cases, the courts generally
and unequivocal will depend on the context of the seek proof of both detrimental reliance by the
assurance. Proprietary estoppel can be held where claimant and proof that the landowner is acting
there is a continuing pattern of conduct over a unconscionably in seeking to enforce his strict legal
significant period of time rights
Gillet v Holt- Promises made in respect of gifts under Detriment may take any form so long as it is not
a will are enforceable because although the testator minimal or trivial. It may take the form of
can always revoke the will before death, the improvements to the land, but detriment need not
claimant’s right will crystallise into a property right as relate to the land at all: it could be support or
soon as the claimant has acted to their detriment assistance given to the landowner
Gillet cont- A claim to rights is usually upheld where Gillet v Holt- Detriment can arise in cases where the
the testator’s promises are very clear, made in front claimant has derived some benefit from the
of witnesses and have been relied on by the claimant landowner
over a long period of time
Crabb v Arun DC- A representation can be made by Nature of the rights arising under proprietary estoppel:
silence. The owner does not have to be aware of the
specific act of reliance by the claimant Proprietary estoppel entitles the claimant to equitable relief.
