Proprietary Estoppel

• Unlike promissory estoppel, proprietary estoppel is not limited to a defence.

• An antidote to a lack of formality, a proprietary right against a land owner.

• Denning MR in Moorgate Mercantile v Twitchings [1976]: “when a man, by his words or conduct, has led another to believe in a particular state of affairs, he will not be allowed to go back on it when it would be unjust or inequitable for him to do so.”

• The modern approach in Taylors Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees (1979): Oliver J:

  • Basis of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel is unconscionable dealing with land, rather than the application of technical rules.

  • Four elements:

    • 1) Assurance (Representation)

    • 2) Reliance (on the Assurance)

    • 3) Detriment (due to Reliance)

    • 4) Unconscionability

  • Gillett v Holt [2001] per Robert Walker LJ: “the doctrine of proprietary estoppel cannot be treated as subdivided into three or four watertight compartments … the court must look at the matter in the round”

    • C left school at 15 to work on and live in D’s farmhouse, accepted low pay, worked on the farm and did not search for other jobs for 38 years on the repeated assurance he would inherit the farm. D wrote C out of will and tried to force him out.

    • C received the farmhouse, a substantial portion of the land and compensation.

• 1) Assurance/ Representation:

  • There must be a representation or assurance made to the Claimant, or an expectation that they have or will have rights in the defendant’s land.

    • May be express or implied from conduct.

  • The assurance need merely be ‘certain enough…given the context’ for the parties to understand what was meant by it. There is a lower threshold in a domestic context.

    • Thorner v Major (2009) – Claimant was told in loose terms by landowner (cousin) that he would inherit the land. On the basis of promise C had worked farm for 30years unpaid. No valid will, farm passed on intestacy rules. C claimed estoppel.

      • HoL held that express assurance not required. C reasonably believed that an assurance had been given and reasonably relied on it.

    • Similar facts in Suggitt v Suggitt with father/son. Son had not sought other work in reliance on promise.

    • Note it is not to do with what the landowner meant (if it was so estoppel would hardly ever take place) rather to do with what Claimant reasonably understood.

  • General unconscionability is not sufficient. Must be unconscionable in the context.

  • Some claim there is a different test in commercial context. This is wrong, the context is just different:

    • Yeoman’s v Cobbe (2008) – Cobbe argued that Yeomans had encouraged him with assurances (discount on property) to seek planning permission at his own expense.

      • Held the assurances were not given with sufficient clarity, despite the fact that Yeoman had clearly behaved badly.

      • Unconscionability itself is insufficient. Unconscionability works to ‘unify and confirm’ all of the other elements in PE.

  • The assurance needs to relate to some right in property, a proprietary right - West End Commercial v Trocadero (2017)

    • Here no PE as was only promised a personal right

  • A shared common belief and acquiescence in actions may suffice:

    • Crabb v Arun (1976) – Crabb sold part of his land, leaving his house landlocked. Was assured by council that they would build a right of way. Council demanded money to build it. Happy to pay originally then sought estoppel.

      • Estoppel claim succeeded. An exception to the rule in Baker v Baker that generally an award will not exceed claimant’s expectation.

  • Assurance can arise from a failed written agreement provided that this does not sidestep statutory formalities for dealings with land

    • Herbert v Doyle (2010). Arden LJ: if their agreement…is incomplete, they cannot utilise the doctrine of proprietary estoppel or the doctrine of constructive trust to make their agreement binding on the other party

• 2) Reliance

  • The claimant must act in reliance on the assurance.

  • If the Claimant would have acted in the same way (and suffered any consequent detriment) regardless of the assurance then they have not acted in reliance.

  • Reliance can be presumed if there is detriment and then the burden of proof shifts to the landowner – Greasley v Cooke...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Land Law Notes.