Proprietary Estoppel
Proprietary estoppel is a set of equitable principles allowing rights or privileges over land to
arise even without a deed, registered document, written contract, or valid will. It applies
when formalities—including future electronic ones—are unmet. Typically, the landowner
gives an assurance, which another person relies on to their detriment.
It can act as a shield, preventing a landowner from enforcing strict rights, or as a sword,
allowing a claimant to enforce a promised right or interest in land.
The term “estoppel” comes from the old French estouppail, meaning a “stopper”—like
putting a cork in a bottle—symbolising the prevention of going back on one’s word.
Estoppel is a drastic remedy. Courts take a major step in awarding proprietary rights without
due formality, especially where it effectively compels a transfer of ownership.
Normally, land interests must be created by deed, registered disposition, or a specifically
enforceable written contract. A will is required to transfer land on death; oral promises
usually fail without one.
The Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 reinforces the need for formalities
by removing reliance on oral contracts and part performance. As land law shifts toward
digital systems, formality ensures clarity and certainty—but at the cost of flexibility and, at
times, fairness.
Proprietary estoppel is equity’s response to this rigidity. Courts will grant the right or interest
necessary to remedy unconscionability, allowing informal dealings to generate land rights
where justice demands.
Assurance- Principle: assurance is a promise or representation made by the landowner
that the claimant will have a right or interest in the land.
Assurance – Case: Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18 Facts: David Thorner worked unpaid on
his cousin Peter Major’s farm for over 30 years, relying on indirect assurances that he would
inherit the farm. These included actions like handing over a life insurance policy referring to
the farm. Although Peter never explicitly promised the inheritance, his conduct strongly
implied it. Held: The House of Lords ruled in David Thorner’s favour, holding that the
assurance was “clear enough” when viewed in the context of their relationship and the
circumstances. The court confirmed that an implied assurance can support a claim for
proprietary estoppel. Lord Walker found the four essential elements of proprietary
estoppel: assurance, reliance, detriment, and unconscionability.Majority (Lord Walker):
Lord Walker gave the leading judgment, stating that clarity of assurance should be assessed
contextually, and in this case, the assurance was sufficiently clear to justify Thorner’s belief
and reliance.
, Dissent (Lord Scott): He disagreed, considering the assurance too vague to justify the
transfer of property under estoppel.
Reliance- Principle: Reliance occurs when the claimant changes their position as a result of
the assurance, and the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove it. Case: Greasley v
Cooke [1980] Facts: Cooke, a housekeeper, was told she could live in the family home for
life. Relying on this assurance, she stayed and cared for the family without payment. Held:
The court held that reliance was presumed because Cooke stayed in the house and
devoted her time to unpaid caregiving, and the defendants could not prove otherwise.
Detriment includes financial expenditure or significant changes in circumstances made in
reliance on the assurance.
Principle: Detriment includes financial expenditure or significant changes in circumstances
made in reliance on the assurance.
Case: Inwards v Baker [1965] – successful Facts: A father encouraged his son to build a
bungalow on his land, assuring him he could live there for life. The son spent his savings
building it. The father later tried to evict him. Held: The court held that the son had
suffered detriment by spending his money building on the land. The father's assurance
created an irrevocable licence, and the son could remain in the bungalow.
Principle: Unconscionability requires more than just disappointment—it must be unjust
for the landowner to deny the assurance after the claimant has acted to their detriment.
The court looks at the situation "in the round."
Gillet v Holt [2000] - Facts: Gillet worked on Holt's farm for over 40 years based on
repeated assurances he would inherit it. Holt later altered his will to exclude Gillet. Held:
The court held that it was unconscionable for Holt to deny the promises made to Gillet, as
he had devoted his life to the farm under the belief he would inherit it.
In Campbell v Jones [2005] EWCA Civ 1510, Campbell had granted a charge over his
property for a loan of £35,000, but did not remain in possession of the property after the
charge was made. The Court of Appeal held that a charge over property does not
automatically mean that the person granting the charge retains possession. The court
clarified that unless explicitly agreed otherwise, a charge does not imply continued
possession, and the transfer of possession or control might be necessary based on the
terms of the agreement.
Registered Land: Section 116 LPA 1925: Equity from estoppel is treated as an interest that
can bind future owners, even before a court order makes it a formal right (e.g., lease or
transfer). To enforce in registered land: . Protect by Notice: A notice must be added to the
charges register to ensure it binds third parties. Overriding Interest: If no notice is added,
the equity may still bind a third party as an overriding interest under Schedule 3,
Proprietary estoppel is a set of equitable principles allowing rights or privileges over land to
arise even without a deed, registered document, written contract, or valid will. It applies
when formalities—including future electronic ones—are unmet. Typically, the landowner
gives an assurance, which another person relies on to their detriment.
It can act as a shield, preventing a landowner from enforcing strict rights, or as a sword,
allowing a claimant to enforce a promised right or interest in land.
The term “estoppel” comes from the old French estouppail, meaning a “stopper”—like
putting a cork in a bottle—symbolising the prevention of going back on one’s word.
Estoppel is a drastic remedy. Courts take a major step in awarding proprietary rights without
due formality, especially where it effectively compels a transfer of ownership.
Normally, land interests must be created by deed, registered disposition, or a specifically
enforceable written contract. A will is required to transfer land on death; oral promises
usually fail without one.
The Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 reinforces the need for formalities
by removing reliance on oral contracts and part performance. As land law shifts toward
digital systems, formality ensures clarity and certainty—but at the cost of flexibility and, at
times, fairness.
Proprietary estoppel is equity’s response to this rigidity. Courts will grant the right or interest
necessary to remedy unconscionability, allowing informal dealings to generate land rights
where justice demands.
Assurance- Principle: assurance is a promise or representation made by the landowner
that the claimant will have a right or interest in the land.
Assurance – Case: Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18 Facts: David Thorner worked unpaid on
his cousin Peter Major’s farm for over 30 years, relying on indirect assurances that he would
inherit the farm. These included actions like handing over a life insurance policy referring to
the farm. Although Peter never explicitly promised the inheritance, his conduct strongly
implied it. Held: The House of Lords ruled in David Thorner’s favour, holding that the
assurance was “clear enough” when viewed in the context of their relationship and the
circumstances. The court confirmed that an implied assurance can support a claim for
proprietary estoppel. Lord Walker found the four essential elements of proprietary
estoppel: assurance, reliance, detriment, and unconscionability.Majority (Lord Walker):
Lord Walker gave the leading judgment, stating that clarity of assurance should be assessed
contextually, and in this case, the assurance was sufficiently clear to justify Thorner’s belief
and reliance.
, Dissent (Lord Scott): He disagreed, considering the assurance too vague to justify the
transfer of property under estoppel.
Reliance- Principle: Reliance occurs when the claimant changes their position as a result of
the assurance, and the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove it. Case: Greasley v
Cooke [1980] Facts: Cooke, a housekeeper, was told she could live in the family home for
life. Relying on this assurance, she stayed and cared for the family without payment. Held:
The court held that reliance was presumed because Cooke stayed in the house and
devoted her time to unpaid caregiving, and the defendants could not prove otherwise.
Detriment includes financial expenditure or significant changes in circumstances made in
reliance on the assurance.
Principle: Detriment includes financial expenditure or significant changes in circumstances
made in reliance on the assurance.
Case: Inwards v Baker [1965] – successful Facts: A father encouraged his son to build a
bungalow on his land, assuring him he could live there for life. The son spent his savings
building it. The father later tried to evict him. Held: The court held that the son had
suffered detriment by spending his money building on the land. The father's assurance
created an irrevocable licence, and the son could remain in the bungalow.
Principle: Unconscionability requires more than just disappointment—it must be unjust
for the landowner to deny the assurance after the claimant has acted to their detriment.
The court looks at the situation "in the round."
Gillet v Holt [2000] - Facts: Gillet worked on Holt's farm for over 40 years based on
repeated assurances he would inherit it. Holt later altered his will to exclude Gillet. Held:
The court held that it was unconscionable for Holt to deny the promises made to Gillet, as
he had devoted his life to the farm under the belief he would inherit it.
In Campbell v Jones [2005] EWCA Civ 1510, Campbell had granted a charge over his
property for a loan of £35,000, but did not remain in possession of the property after the
charge was made. The Court of Appeal held that a charge over property does not
automatically mean that the person granting the charge retains possession. The court
clarified that unless explicitly agreed otherwise, a charge does not imply continued
possession, and the transfer of possession or control might be necessary based on the
terms of the agreement.
Registered Land: Section 116 LPA 1925: Equity from estoppel is treated as an interest that
can bind future owners, even before a court order makes it a formal right (e.g., lease or
transfer). To enforce in registered land: . Protect by Notice: A notice must be added to the
charges register to ensure it binds third parties. Overriding Interest: If no notice is added,
the equity may still bind a third party as an overriding interest under Schedule 3,
