Proprietary Estoppel

Proprietary Estoppel

1. DEFINITION: P.E is a defence that arises in circumstances where the land owner expressly or impliedly gives ASSURANCE to the other whom of which RELIES on it to their DETRIMENT.

2. Modern Requirements: As per Taylor v Liverpool Victoria Trustees - It must be established that there was an assurance, reliance and detriment in circumstances in which would be unconscionable to deny a remedy to C.

   • ASSURANCE: 1) Express or implied in conduct - Dann v Spurrier [1802] In Thorner - " silence serves as the element of assurance.”2) Must be 'clear enough' - Thorner v Major [2009] In Uglow v Uglow [2004] PE cases consider whether the D “by his conduct ... created the [C's] expectation”.
   • RELIANCE: 1) Must be reasonable reliance 2) Doesn’t matter whether D intended C to rely 3) Doesn’t matter if dual motive for reliance - Campbell v Griffin [2001]
   • DETRIMENT: Needn't be in relation to the property - Jennings v Rice [2003]; Doesn't matter if there is some benefit - Southwell v Blackburn [2014]
   • UNCONSCIONABILITY: 1) Wills repeated assurances - Murphy v Burrows [2004] vs. Thorner 2) Contracts - Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] vs. Wombwell v James [2015] 3) C must come w/ clean hands - Murphy v Rayner [2011]

3. Old Requirements: 1) C must have made a mistake on matters of legal rights over land 2) true landowner must know of the C's mistaken belief 3) C must have expended money/ action of the mistaken belief 4) Landowner must have encouraged the expenditure by the C directly or through abstinence 5) Landowners must be aware of own rights that are inconsistent with the alleged rights

4. ACADEMIC OPINION

   • Dixon:
     • "It would be unconscionable for the defendant to relay on lack of formality to defeat the C"
   • J Mee -
   • Mcfarlane
   • Nigel Gravells - "unconscionability alone, without detrimental reliance on a representation is insufficient in itself to found proprietary estoppel claim"
   • Pawlowski - In both the cases of Gissing and Edwards,"equity acts on the conscience of the legal owner to prevent him from acting in an unconscionable manner by defeating the C's belief"
   • Griffiths : The C's reliance is irrevocable and binding
     • The defence generates uncertainty and unpredictability as to when it may arise
   • Delany - Must ensure there is proportionality between the expectation and the detriment.

5. Key Issues