Crabb v Arun D C [1976] Ch 179

• Plaintiff had access to a road at point A and wanted access at point B. He had a meeting with Defendant and they agreed that Plaintiff could have another access point “in principle”. Defendant then built a fence as agreed with Plaintiff and put in a gate at point B, so that Plaintiff now had his second access.

• Plaintiff later assigned his rights to access point A to a 3rd party so that his only access to the road was at the gate at point B. Defendant then replaced the gate with a fence, locking Plaintiff in.

• CA allowed Plaintiff’s claim. 

Lord Denning

• Estoppel can give a cause of action concerning rights or interests over land and is founded in equity. This is “proprietary estoppel”.

• In this case Defendant lead Plaintiff to believe that he would have a right to access the road at point by putting in a gate, etc. and Plaintiff relied on this, so that it would be inequitable to allow Defendant to go back on his implied granting of the right.

Lawton LJ

• Found a firm agreement between Defendant and Plaintiff and stated that Defendant had given an undertaking and therefore Plaintiff had a right top access at point B.

• Estoppel is to “mitigate the rigours of strict law”. 

Lord Scarman

• The courts cannot find an equity established unless it would be “unconscionable and unjust” to allow a strict enforcement of legal rights.

• He also said that he didn’t find the proprietary-promissory distinction helpful.

• The danger with this is that, unlike Denning, he has set no restrictions on which forms of estoppel could be used to found a cause of action. 

RELATED CASES

• Yeoman’s Row v Cobbe

• Thorner v Major