Summary
Summary proprietary estoppel
- Course
- Institution
Summary of 9 pages for the course Property Law at UoW (property law)
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
vickyhoney
Content preview
Proprietary EstoppelWhat is the doctrine of Proprietary Estoppel?
“There is no definition of proprietary estoppel that is both comprehensive and uncontroversial (and many
attempts at one have been neither)”
- S. Gardner, An Introduction to Land Law (Oxford: Hart, 2007)
An EQUITABLE doctrine
You can start thinking about justice, fairness and unconscionability.
Proprietary – a type of interest.
Estoppel – ‘estopped’ prevented from denying the truth of a particular factual position or legal status.
It is a means by which a person may acquire a proprietary interest in another’s land.
Proprietary Estoppel can be used to ensure that people do not suffer harm as a consequence of someone
else’s ‘representations’, which they later try to go back on.
How can Proprietary Estoppel be used?
Can be used as a sword in a claim seeking to establish rights over land.
OR as a defense or shield when a landowner seeks to enforce his/ her legal rights.
Back to Formalities
We have come back to this point time and time again, the law of property requires A LOT of formalities, which
are usually key to creation of interests in land.
How does that relate to Proprietary Estoppel ?
Doctrine of Proprietary Estoppel operates outside of these formalities – and therefore is an exception to the
general rule.
Under the doctrine interests in land may be created, without a deed or without even being written.
Equitable doctrine = a lot of flexibility. Instead the focus is on the conscience of the parties and their conduct.
But not complete discretion!
Lord Walker in Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management; “Not a sort of joker, or wild-cad to be used whenever the
Court disapproves of the conduct of a litigant who seems to have the law on his side”
How does it work?
Two stage process
Stage 1; Establish an ‘equity’ Requires the satisfaction of the four requirements, which we will look at
in turn.
Historical Context;
Proprietary Estoppel developed in two historical cases:
Ramsden v Dyson (1866) & Willmott v Barber (1880)
Old approach: Five Requirements
1. The claimant (the person seeking PE) must have made some kind of mistake regarding his legal rights over
the land (which belongs to someone else, the defendant).
2. The claimant must have spent money, or else carried out some kind of action, (in reliance of their mistake).
3. The defendant must know of his own right, (which is inconsistent with the right the claimant is arguing).
4. The defendant must know of the claimant’s mistaken belief.
5. The defendant must have given some form of encouragement for the claimant to spend money/carry out an
action OR have failed to assert his legal right in the land (i.e. keeping quiet..)
, Very RIGID!
Placed high burden on the claimant – for example, the requirement that the claimant was mistaken as to their
legal rights.
With the evolution of the doctrine, it was inevitable that the strict requirement outlined by Fry J would be
relaxed and departed from.
The Modern Approach
Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co. Ltd (1982)
FACTS: The claimants believed that they had the right to renew a lease, and therefore invested money into the
property.
DECISION: The defendants made a representation to the claimants that they had a proprietary interest in the
land, and therefore it would be unconscionable for the defendant to rely upon his strict legal right.
4 Requirements
1. Representation: the defendant made an assurance or representation was made to the claimant as to her/
his property rights
2. Reliance: The representation was relied upon by the claimant
3. Detriment: The claimant suffered a detriment as a consequence
4. Unconscionability: it would be unconscionable to for the claimant to be denied a remedy
Less rigid checklist but should be looked as a series of interrelated factors to be considered as a whole
Holistic approach to Proprietary Estoppel
Old approach vs the Modern Approach
Some cases post-Taylor Fashions [1982], have nonetheless focused on the ‘old’ (5) requirements from
Willmott v Barber (1880).
For example: In Coombes v Smith [1986], and Matharu v Matharu [1994], the judges appear to have largely
ignored the more simplified (4*) criteria, in favour of the 5 requirements from Willmott!
Issue: This is, in part, why this area of law is (perhaps, overly..?) fluid, and can at times cause some
uncertainty as to the decision the courts might reach...
The Requirements
1) Representation
At the very heart of Proprietary Estoppel : The claimant acted in the belief that he/she was entitled or would
become entitled to an interest in land.
For a successful Proprietary Estoppel claim, it is the defendant that made a representation or assurance to
such entitlement.
Representation can be made verbally or by conduct.
There may be a gap between the acts of the landowner and the expectations of the claimant.
Representation; Active Assurance
Inwards v Baker [1965]
FACTS: Father actively encouraged his son to build a bungalow on his land. The son did as the father
suggested. As the father had given permission (and had encouraged) to build it.
DECISION: The court held that this amounted to a representation, which gave rise to the doctrine of PE.
Pascoe v Turner[1979]
FACTS: The defendant had said “the house is yours, and everything in it”
DECISION: such a representation was held to be (very) clear, and gave rise to Proprietary Estoppel in favour
of the claimant.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller vickyhoney. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $13.70. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
67232 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now