LAND LAW PRACTICE EXAM
QUESTIONS WITH CORRECT
ANSWERS
PE: representation - Answer-- must be clear (Pascoe v Turner)
- need explicit statement (Taylor Fashions v Victoria Trustees)
Pascoe v Turner - Answer-Facts: Husband left wife for mistress but had assured her
"the house is yours and everything in it". In reliance on that assurance she carried
out improvement to the house. He later tried to evict her.
Principle: There was a clear statement relied upon by the ex-wife to her detriment
and therefore PE was established.
Inwards & Orvs v Baker - Answer-Facts: A father encouraged his son to build a
bungalow on his land which he did at his own expense and moved in. 20 years later
the father died and left all his property to his live-in partner I. 10 years later I tried to
evict the son.
Principle: PE was established as the son had acted in reliance on the fathers
assurance to his detriment.
Gillet v Holt - Answer-Facts: G met H (farmer) when 12 + worked and socialised for
43 years in belief he'd inherit the farm. G disinherited + claimed PE based on 7
separate representations.
Principle: CoA found (a) representation; (b) reliance; (c) detriment and awarded G
the freehold + £100,000 compensation for exlusion from farming business.
Walker LJ:
- "in any event reliance would be presumed"
- "the fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable
conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine"
- "The detriment need not consist of the expenditure of money or other quantifiable
financial detriment, so long as it is something substantial"
-"They deprived themselves of the opportunity of trying to better themselves in other
ways"
Greasley v Cooke - Answer-Facts: C moved into G's house becoming a maid for free
on the assurance that she would have a home for life after their death.
Principle: PE was established as reliance could be assumed where a claimant had
acted to their detriment.
Campbell v Griffin - Answer-Facts: C moved into G's house as a lodger, later
became affectionate relationship + C looked after them. They promised C could stay
in house for rest of life. Mr G executed will to this effect but Mrs G was too senile to
, change will. Mr G died so land transferred to Mrs G by right of survivorship who then
died and the claimant got nothing.
Principle: PE requires the claimant to have acted in reliance on an assurance. C
admitted he acted out of affection for the couple. CoA held claimant can have mixed
motives and acted out of affection as well as in reliance upon the assurance
therefore PE was established.
Jennings v Rice - Answer-Facts: J (originally part-time gardner) took increasing care
of R as she got older without being paid e.g. stayed overnight as security. R made
statements she "would see him right" but died intestate. Trial judge found PE and
awarded £200,000. J appealed claiming whole estate or value of (£435,000).
Principle: CoA held trial judge was correct, must be proportionate between maximum
extent of the equity and the detriment suffered.
- Aldous J - "principle of proportionality"
- Walker LJ - "the essence of the doctrine of PE is to do what is necessary to avoid
an unconscionable result, and a disproportionate remedy cannot be the right way of
going about that"
Yeoman's Row Management Ltd v Cobbe - Answer-Facts: orally agreed that C
would apply for planning permission to develop the property. If granted, Y would sell
property to C for £12 mil - when sold after redevelopment, profit over £24 mil would
be split equally. After permission obtained Y sought to alter terms so C brought
proceedings.
Principle: PE not found for two reasons:
1. no proprietary interest in land; C's interest was for a successful negotiation for sale
following obtaining permission
2. lack of reliance; C should have known (as an experienced property developer) that
the oral agreement wasn't binding + subject to further negotiations
Lord Scott:
- "the remedy to which...Mr cobbe is entitled can... be described neither as based on
an estoppel nor as proprietary in character"
- unconscionability should only be considered after presence of other 3 elements has
been proved
Thorner v Major - Answer-Facts: T worked unpaid for 30 years on father's cousin's
farm + encouraged to believe would inherit farm despite no clear representation (e.g.
handed insurance notice for life policies saying "that's for my death duties"). Farmer
died intestate + T claimed PE against estate executors.
Principle: HoL found PE and held that:
- the required clarity of a representation depended on the context (weight given to
trial judges opinions hearing witnesses; continuing pattern of conduct, intended to be
taken seriously + relied upon).
- assurances must relate to identifiable property (both understood size of farm
fluctuated, with sakes + purchases, but meant at time of death)
Lord Walker:
QUESTIONS WITH CORRECT
ANSWERS
PE: representation - Answer-- must be clear (Pascoe v Turner)
- need explicit statement (Taylor Fashions v Victoria Trustees)
Pascoe v Turner - Answer-Facts: Husband left wife for mistress but had assured her
"the house is yours and everything in it". In reliance on that assurance she carried
out improvement to the house. He later tried to evict her.
Principle: There was a clear statement relied upon by the ex-wife to her detriment
and therefore PE was established.
Inwards & Orvs v Baker - Answer-Facts: A father encouraged his son to build a
bungalow on his land which he did at his own expense and moved in. 20 years later
the father died and left all his property to his live-in partner I. 10 years later I tried to
evict the son.
Principle: PE was established as the son had acted in reliance on the fathers
assurance to his detriment.
Gillet v Holt - Answer-Facts: G met H (farmer) when 12 + worked and socialised for
43 years in belief he'd inherit the farm. G disinherited + claimed PE based on 7
separate representations.
Principle: CoA found (a) representation; (b) reliance; (c) detriment and awarded G
the freehold + £100,000 compensation for exlusion from farming business.
Walker LJ:
- "in any event reliance would be presumed"
- "the fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable
conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine"
- "The detriment need not consist of the expenditure of money or other quantifiable
financial detriment, so long as it is something substantial"
-"They deprived themselves of the opportunity of trying to better themselves in other
ways"
Greasley v Cooke - Answer-Facts: C moved into G's house becoming a maid for free
on the assurance that she would have a home for life after their death.
Principle: PE was established as reliance could be assumed where a claimant had
acted to their detriment.
Campbell v Griffin - Answer-Facts: C moved into G's house as a lodger, later
became affectionate relationship + C looked after them. They promised C could stay
in house for rest of life. Mr G executed will to this effect but Mrs G was too senile to
, change will. Mr G died so land transferred to Mrs G by right of survivorship who then
died and the claimant got nothing.
Principle: PE requires the claimant to have acted in reliance on an assurance. C
admitted he acted out of affection for the couple. CoA held claimant can have mixed
motives and acted out of affection as well as in reliance upon the assurance
therefore PE was established.
Jennings v Rice - Answer-Facts: J (originally part-time gardner) took increasing care
of R as she got older without being paid e.g. stayed overnight as security. R made
statements she "would see him right" but died intestate. Trial judge found PE and
awarded £200,000. J appealed claiming whole estate or value of (£435,000).
Principle: CoA held trial judge was correct, must be proportionate between maximum
extent of the equity and the detriment suffered.
- Aldous J - "principle of proportionality"
- Walker LJ - "the essence of the doctrine of PE is to do what is necessary to avoid
an unconscionable result, and a disproportionate remedy cannot be the right way of
going about that"
Yeoman's Row Management Ltd v Cobbe - Answer-Facts: orally agreed that C
would apply for planning permission to develop the property. If granted, Y would sell
property to C for £12 mil - when sold after redevelopment, profit over £24 mil would
be split equally. After permission obtained Y sought to alter terms so C brought
proceedings.
Principle: PE not found for two reasons:
1. no proprietary interest in land; C's interest was for a successful negotiation for sale
following obtaining permission
2. lack of reliance; C should have known (as an experienced property developer) that
the oral agreement wasn't binding + subject to further negotiations
Lord Scott:
- "the remedy to which...Mr cobbe is entitled can... be described neither as based on
an estoppel nor as proprietary in character"
- unconscionability should only be considered after presence of other 3 elements has
been proved
Thorner v Major - Answer-Facts: T worked unpaid for 30 years on father's cousin's
farm + encouraged to believe would inherit farm despite no clear representation (e.g.
handed insurance notice for life policies saying "that's for my death duties"). Farmer
died intestate + T claimed PE against estate executors.
Principle: HoL found PE and held that:
- the required clarity of a representation depended on the context (weight given to
trial judges opinions hearing witnesses; continuing pattern of conduct, intended to be
taken seriously + relied upon).
- assurances must relate to identifiable property (both understood size of farm
fluctuated, with sakes + purchases, but meant at time of death)
Lord Walker:
