This is an extract of our What Is The Driver Behind Proprietary Estoppel document, which we sell as part of our Land Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Land Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
What is the driver behind proprietary estoppel?
Is the driver expectation?
C definitely needs to expect something - but this only seems to establish a claim in proprietary estoppel o You're going to need something extra to get relief for it o McFarlane and Bright: Basis of estoppel is merely to protect B's reasonable reliance where A can be said to be responsible for the expectation on which the reliance was based
? Pascoe v Turner : D suggested giving entire house to C as relief =
Cumming Bruce LJ: o Court should consider all the circumstances, and must decide what is the minimum equity to do justice to D owing to detrimental reliance caused by C
? Clear that C is poor and D is rich and will not suffer much loss while C will suffer grave loss o Equity cannot here be satisfied w/o granting remedy which assures to the defendant security of tenure without interference from C
? and a clean break
Should we have to expect some kind of proprietary right?
o Cobbe v Yeoman's Row :
? Lord Scott
The problem in this case is that there is no proprietary right specifically examined o And unconscionability of conduct may well lead to a remedy but proprietary estoppel cannot be the route to it o To treat a "proprietary estoppel equity" as requiring neither a proprietary claim by the claimant
? but simply unconscionable behaviour is a recipe for confusion o Dixon: does ensure that we don't create new rights ad hoc
? The law of real property places limits on the ability of persons to create property rights--usually, the parties must employ a degree of formality.
The extent to which estoppel permits the claimant to obtain a property right without such formality o necessarily contradicts the policy of certainty that is inherent in the statutory formality rules. o But there are other ways to limit this without requiring the claimant to specifically know what proprietary right they're after
? Thorner looks to how the ingredients of estoppel--assurance, reliance and detriment--should be defined so as to limit claims of estoppel.
Rather than reclassifying proprietary estoppel as a form of promissory estoppel
This is not to say they were wholly successful - o Lord Walker in Thorner = what sort of assurance depends hugely on the context Is it what someone has detrimentally relied on?
Gardner: There are hints of this, but different interpretations of what reliance means and how much you need
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Land Law Notes.