it is uncertain whether a contracual licensee could additonally rely on restoplle
thimpson 1983 thinks so but brigss 1981 does not
recent cases have changed or developed a number of ossies in relation to interesrs created by estoppel
you should make notes on the relevant facts, decisoons and reasoning on each of the cases and note what was gfiven to the successful claimants in order to give effect to equitry
sledmore v dalby 1996 the court odf eappeal held that though an eqauity had arisen in favour of the respondent it was not ;onger ine quaitable to deafeat it due to the ebnefirst wjch eh had enhouyed over the eyar AND THE PARTOES SOTUATIONS AT THE TIME OF THE ACTION
thus though dalby could have had an estppel inters he was given nothing
———–
gillett v holt 2000
the defendant had promised to leavethe bulk of his estate to mr gillet and had made a will doing so
subsequentyhe changed his will exclduing mr gillet whose claim in properotry estopple succeeeded
the court of appeal rejected the idea thatr there had to be ”diuble aqssurance”
a second promise that the defendant would in noncirysmatcnes chabnge his wil\ it was ernough that the defdedant had behaved unconsciobaly by withdraweing his promise adfter the claimant had to know knowledg relied on it to his detriment
————————–
yaxley v gotts 1999 court of appeal held that even wen an agreement relating to lane was vpid for want fmorality the doctinre of properiotraytr estoppel could still operate to cpmped on of the parties to give effect to a promise made under the agreement
banner group v luff agreements 2000
——————
hunt v soady court of appeal 2007 where there had been a provisional agreement that one beneficial tenant in common H would transfer her beneficial interest to the other S proprietary estoppel could not operate since a that agreement had not been acted on by the other party either in good time or ot his detriment ; it was not unconscionable for H to go back on her representation , particularly given the substantial change in circumstances since the time of the provisional agreement
____________________
holman v howes 2007
a divorced couple bought property together being optimistic about reconciliation and occupation
they both contributed to the purchase price but the legal title was put into the sole name of the ex husband
he then left the house but the ex-wife continued to live there
on application for an order to determine their beneficial shares with the ex husband also seeking an order for sale , the court held that the assurances had been made that the ex-wife could occupy the property for as long as she wanted
since there was detrimental reliance y the woman the requirements of proprietary estoppel were satisfied and thus un order to satisfy this equity there should be no order for sale without the woman’s consent
___________________________
james v thomas 2007
where there was insufficient evidence of a common intention that j should have a beneficial interest in the property and assurances made by T to J were vague as to the extent of any beneficial interest which J might expect neither a constructive trust interest nor one via proprietary estoppel could arise
the parties had lived together for 15 years in a property held in T s sole name – J had helped T with hus business and together they had conducted extensive renovations of the property . the assurances which were found to be too vague were that the renovations would be for the benefit of both parties and that J would be provided for on T ;s death
__________________
powell and benney 2007
the appellants P had looked after B;s couins H and had improved his properties for their own use after H became unable to look after himself properly and gave them the keys to the premises
H had promised the properties to P upon his death but he died intestate due to his will being invalid
the court held that there was not strong enough casual link between the promise and the work carried out for P to receive the entire properties as satisfaction for the equity while P had incurred some expense in improving the premises they had not been required to do so by H
thus the case was a non bargain proprietary estoppel claim Jennings v rice applied
to transfer the properties to P would be out of all proportion to the detriment P had suffered and so the trial judges award of GBP 20 000 was upheld
____________________________________________
yeoman’s row management lrd v cobb 2008
the house of lord has shownt hat the esceptions to the law of preoperty miscellaneoyus provions 1989
are narrower than previously thiought
a property developer reached an oral agreement in principle with an owner to buy its property and then spent considerable sums in obtaining planning permission
the owner then refused to proceed on the agreed terms and enter into a binding contract
the house of lords re\versed the decision of the court of appeal and held that the developer was not entitled to a remedy based on proprietary estoppel or a constructive trust byut only to a quantum meruit payment for his services in pursuing and obtaining planning permission
since neither party had thought that the agreement between them had been enforceable
Y could not be estopped from relying upon section 2 to show that the agreement was unenforceable
the agreement between the parties was a gentleman’s agreement was too uncertain as too its terms to constitute a contract
the lower courts had pushed properitry estoppel too far
______________________________
thorner v majors 2009
rather taciturn farmer, called pter, died intestate after revoking a prevoous will which ahd elft the resideu of his estate to david the son of his cousin.
this would have given peter’s farm to david . the wil had been revoked apparently because pter had falle out with one of the legatees to whom he had givena sum of money, and wished to exclude him.
the only way in which david could now succeed in establishing title to the farm was claiming proprietary estoppel because on intestacy the farmw ould now go to pter’s close er relatives
david assisted peter on the farm for almost a 30 year oeriod woithout being paid an income. at no point did pter state to david tyhat eh would leave any property to him after hi death. instead david had tio make out his case frm inferecnes , this was a watershed moment turning david’s hope of ingerting the famr into epxcetion , following this there were a number of other comments made by peter which david alleged would ony have been made to a perdson who was spected t inherit the farm
ewith lloyd LJ giving the leading judgement the court of appeal reversed the decision of the court below on the basius that fir estopopel to succeed in these cases the representation had to be clear and unequivocal and not drawn from inferences
but the case was then appealed to the house of lords who resvered the court of appeal decison findind tat it had been wroing to overutn the first instabce judge decison the trial judge was best placed to assess all thr parties dealing and all the videncve before him
for proprietary estoppel to succeed ot os indeed tj case that an assurance must be clear enough and must relate to identified property
both the deceased and the claimant understood that the property was to be a farm in the sate as it existed at the deceased death whatever that might be,. the precise scope of the property did not need to be agree din advance . the house of lords disntibgusiebnd cobbe v yeoman;s row ont he gound that in cobbe there had bere no doubt as to the phsycla identity of the property bnut there had been compete uncertainty as to the nature of the benefit given to cobbe
in cobbe the relationship between teh aprties was a commercial one at arms length where the parties shAS CHOSEN NOT TO ENTER INTO A CONtract AND knew THat Were not LEGALLY BOUND T O EACH OTHER/
YOU would be advised tor ead this case as the jdyeg considered preperty estoppel in detail.
________________________
henry v henry 2010
the privy council an appeal from st lucia in proprietary estoppel case. T bought the land from an elderyly relative G just befotre the latter’s death. G promised to leave the land in her will to C who had lived on it and cultivated it for eyars. the trail jduge hgad dismissed C’s cliam on the basis that her had not suffered detrriment he had recieved a benefit from the land for ovr 30 yars and T weas registered proprietor who had been given value for thje and and so took free of C s claim
the court of appeal howver did find that C had suffered detriment and hence had an equity which bound T as an overriding interest,. st lucia has a similar land registration sysrem to england and wales
on appeal T argued that since her purchase of the land had not been unconsciobna;e she should not be bound by any equity which had arisen in favour of C
the privy conuncil held that the trial judfe had misdirected himsefl as to detriment by failing to weight up C ‘s advantage s and disadvantages resulting from the promise – kennings v rice applied –
the court of appeal had also been mistaken in tis ppaorach to detriment
hence the PC had to consdier tyhy issue afrsh and gound that c HAD Deprived himself of better life elsehwere bey remaining ont he lad
that detriment had not been outweighed by the advantages he took from his hard life in which he has had tos struggle to make ends meet occupying the land
the resulting estoppel equity was satisfied by awarding C half of T ;s share of the plot if land
i e quarter of the total
proportionality is at heart of proprietary estoppel
the privy council looked at the effect of an estoppel equity on third parties
the privy council looked at an effect of an estoppel equity on third parties and noted obiter that there may be cases in which circumstances of a third party purchase might requite a claimant’s equity to be reassessed even thought the claimant has an overriding interest
——————— the land registration act 2020 provides that an equity by estoppel ”has effect from time the equity arises as an interest capable of binding successors in title”
thus it is confirmed that a uncystrallised estoppel ”equity” can bind a transferee if protected as required by normal rules of registered or unregistered land
in registered land it can be protected by an entry on the register or coupled with actual occupation is capable of overriding a disposition
but once the court has granted a remedy then whether a transferee i sbund will depend on the nature of the remedy
if a remedy is a freehold or an easement then it will bind a trasnferee but it it is a licence or financial compensation then it will not