Samenvatting
Summary Proprietary Estoppel revision notes and structure
- Vak
- Instelling
Notes that offer key cases and exam structure for equity and trusts proprietary estoppel.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 2 van de 7 pagina's
Voorbeeld 2 van de 7 pagina's
In winkelwagen
In winkelwagen
Verkoper
Volgen
ellie6
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Proprietary EstoppelStructure:
Define PE = Representation or assurance given by an owner of a land [A] that B would
acquire some interest in which B has reasonably relied by act or omission that it
would be detrimental to B if A were to go back on his promise / To estop the legal
owner from denying another a proprietary interest in the property.
An equitable discretion by the court – equity will enforce the agreement if the reliance is
to their detriment.
The essence of the doctrine of PE is to do what is necessary to avoid an unconscionable
result – Jennings v Rice [2003]
Historical background of PE
Five probanda – Wilmot v Barber set out 5 probanda.
Test laid down endorsed in Crabb v Arun
‘Is there an equity established? What is the extent of the equity? What is the relief
appropriate so satisfy?’
Broader approach in Taylor Fashions Ltd [1982]
The modern approach is to broaden the scope of PE and focus on the Ds
unconscionability, rather than strict rigid rules.
‘A very much broader approach which is directed rather at ascertaining whether it would be
unconscionable for a party to be permitted to deny that which, knowingly or unknowingly,
he has allowed or encouraged another to assume to his detriment’.
‘A broad test of whether in the circumstances the conduct complained of is unconscionable
without the necessity of forcing those incumbrances into a Procrustean bed constructed
from some unalterable criteria’.
PE – definition.
Crab v Arun Distrcit Council 1976 “The basis of this proprietary estoppel — as indeed of
promissory estoppel — is the interposition of equity. Equity comes in, true to form, to
mitigate the rigours of strict law. The early cases did not speak of it as “estoppel”. They
spoke of it as “raising an equity”
, legal owner of property makes an assurance another is to have an
interest in the property and they rely on that to their detriment, equity estops them from
going back on their promise
Thorner v Major This appeal is concerned with proprietary estoppel. An academic
authority (Simon Gardner, An Introduction to Land Law (2007) p101) has recently
commented: “There is no definition of proprietary estoppel that is both comprehensive
and uncontroversial (and many attempts at one have been neither).
Approach
Thorner v Major = main case, set out 3 elements the doctrine is based on:
1. Representation
2. Reliance
3. Detriment
Representation is not enough to prove reliance on the representation if made on certain
conditions. One must also show the reliance was detrimental and detriment flowed
from reasonable reliance on the representation.
Representation – Assurance
Define –
o
Can be express or implied – required to induce the claimant into believing that he
will obtain an interest or entitlement in land.
o Crabb v Arun district: Use of right of way – C could access Ds land with
encouragement from D to use it.
o Inwards v Baker: Father expressly encouraged son the expectation to live on
the land for his lifetime.
o Thorner v Major: Landowners conduct in standing by in silence serves as the
element of assurance.
Must relate to property
o Gillet v Holt
o Thorner v Major: [61] It is a necessary element of PE that the assurances
given to the C, should relate to identified property owned (or perhaps about
to be owned) by the D....need not be based on an existing legal relationship
but it must relate to an identified property (usually land).
Must be intended to be relied upon
o Gillet v Holt
o Horsford v Horsford
Must be reasonably understood by C:
Commercial situations – more clarity of representation is required for commercial
situations.
Cobbe v Yeomans Row Management – the Cs expectation was not that he would
become entitled to a certain interest in land. His expectation was always contingent.
Family / domestic situations
Principle of clarity and certainty may be applied more flexibly in a domestic context.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
√ Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, Bancontact of creditcard voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper ellie6. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €5,51. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 73091 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen