PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL
under s.53 LPA 1925, all dealings in land have to be in writing, under s.2 LPA Miscellaneous
Provisions 1989, all contracts for the sale of land have to be in writingPE arises when these
formalities are not met, they are a way someone can gain an interest in property even though the
formalities of these formalities are missing
Interests usually created only by deed, registered disposition or written contract or valid will
LP (MP)A 1989 passed for clarity and certainty for creation and disposition of interests more
formality than LPA 1925 where oral contract could create interests
Formality mitigated by PE= set of principles whereby an owner of land may be held to have
conferred some right or privilege connected with land on another person, despite absence of a
deed, registered disposition, written contract or valid will mitigates harshness of common law
Right or privilege usually arise from conduct of parties due to assurance made by owner, relied
upon person claiming right rights in land created without formal dealings with claimant
PE can give defence to an action by landowner who seeks to enforce strict rights PE as defence
PE can be a sword for claimant who relied on assurance of landowner
Court of equity will satisfy estoppel by awarding claimant right or interest
Willmott v Barber [1880]* identifies 5 REQUIREMENTS OF PE
1) Claimant must have made a mistake as to their legal rights over land belonging to another
2) Trust landowner must know of the claimant’s mistaken belief
3) Claimant must have expended money or carried some action on mistaken belief
4) Landowner encouraged expenditure, directly or by abstaining from enforcing their legal rights
5) Landowner must know of existence of own rights, inconsistent with alleged rights of claimant
Onerous would affect immediate estate owner + future purchasers or transferees of land no
certain purchaser or mortgagee would be aware of the estoppel-generated rights due to informality
Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees [1982]*: 2 tenants acted in reliance on options to
purchase freehold estates by carrying out substantial improvements, issue could landlords be
estopped from denying options to purchase held 1 tenant successful where 1 landlord encouraged
works, proprietary estoppel operated claimant can establish estoppel where can prove an
assurance, reliance, and detriment in which it would be unconscionable to deny a remedy
Gillet v Holt [2001]: 4 clear features of estoppel: assurance, reliance, detriment and
unconscionability – 40yrs working farm case, assurances would inherit farm
Cobbe v Yoeman [2008]: HOL refused to allow estoppel to enforce an oral agreement that both
parties knew were only ‘binding in honour’ until it was in writing assurance never made
Shirt v Shirt [2012]: son not able to use estoppel to claim family farm as father assurance vague
Estoppel available to cure absence of formality when would be unconscionable for D to rely on
lack of formality to defeat the claimant unconscionability reason why lack of formality is excused
1
, ASSURANCE
Landowner must make some kind of assurance he would refrain from exercising his strict rights
or claimant might have some present or future right or use over land e.g. can have lease
Thorner v Major [2009]*: claimant worked for Ds estate for 30yrs unpaid, believed would inherit
farm, following non-explicit communications from D Held claim allowed, no clear assurance
made but held just needs to be ‘clear enough’ + property needs to be identifiable
oFamily context general assurance enough, BUT commercial specific assurance needed (Cobbe)
oAssurance by: unilateral (offered by landowner), mutual understanding, expressly/ impliedly,
actions than words, acquiescence (that is standing by while claimant acts detrimentally)
oAcquiescence silence inaction to encourage claimant same as encouragement to continue
Kinane v Alimamy[2005]: borrower agreed by letter to charge his land as security for loan but
written instrument not meet formality of s.2 1989 Act, borrower + lender not sign it held PE
supported creation of mortgage gave lender proprietary remedies when loan was not repaid
Cobbe v Yeoman[2008]*:claimant engaged in significant effort in obtaining planning permission
towards contractual negotiations Held: No PE as claimant well aware he did not have an
enforceable contract in place, PE does not apply as easily to experienced businessmen
o if commercial= specific assurances, if domestic general is fine
Identify where PE operates: where unconscionable to deny assurance, hard to establish
unconscionability where parties intended but failed to conclude a written contract
Estoppel can succeed where claimant reasonably believes assurance has been made Thorner,
but if landowner not know anything about belief then hard to establish estoppel
oSlater v Richardson [1980]: D wholly unaware of claimant belief, not encourage no PE
RELIANCE
Claimant must change their position positive acte.g. expenditure of money, improvements to
property, giving up job opportunity, caring for elderly persons etc
Greasley v Cooke [1980]*: Cooke moved into Greasley household, maid free on assurance would
have home for life held PE as reliance may be assumed where claimant acts to their detriment -
Denning stated reliance is so overt here that we can presume it
Wayling v Jones [1993]: COA looked for only ‘sufficiently link’ with assurance and detriment
Campbell v Griffin [2001]*: claimant a lodger in landowner’s house and overtime took
responsibility of caring for his ‘landlords’ there was assurances of property, claimant even
admitted he would have assisted landlords out of compassion still upheld PE
Chun v Ho [2000]*: Miss Chun successfully established PE to a share in a business and its
property as her actions of giving up her career and establish a life with landowner to disgust of
her family could not be explained for her love for him reliance on his assurance to business
DETRIMENT
What amounts to detriment depends on circumstances but must be ‘something substantial’
Prove suffered some detriment in reliance on assurance e.g. spent money or physically improved
land, or care to needs of landowner or lost some other opportunity sufficient detriment
Gillett v Holt [2001]*: Mr Gillett done well out of his relationship with Mr Holt as owned valuable
shares in farm company, but still incurred a detriment of lost opportunities, was promised will
inherit land from Mr Holt, had fallen out and Mr Holt changed will, Gillet left school early to his
detriment to join farm and worked 40years less than market wage PE
Taylor v Dicken [1997]: claimant worked years without pay in expectation would inherit from
deceased, changed will to other beneficiaries, held no assurance would not change will failed
Lloyd v Dugdale [2001]: Mr Dugdale had to prove (successful) detriment was to him not his
company (separate legal identity)
UNCONSCIONABILITY
2
