Pascoe v Turner

Last updated

Pascoe v Turner
Couteau a peindre.jpg
CourtCourt of Appeal
Full case nameSamuel Oswald Pascoe v Pearl Turner
Decided1 December 1978
Citation(s)[1978] EWCA Civ 2
[1979] 2 All ER 945
[1979] WLR 431
[1979] 1 WLR 431
Transcript(s)
Case history
Prior action(s)Appellant, by contrast, lost before Mr. I.S. McKintosh sitting as Deputy Circuit Judge at Camborne and Redruth County Court
Subsequent action(s)none
Case opinions
Held: the court should consider all the circumstances...the court must decide what is the minimum equity to do justice to her having regard to the way in which she changed her position for the worse by reason of the acquiescence and encouragement of the legal owner.
Held: Compared to her, on the evidence the plaintiff is a rich man. He might not regard an expenditure of a few hundred pounds as a very grave loss. But the court has to regard her change of position over the years 1973 to 1976.
We take the view that the equity cannot here be satisfied without granting a remedy which assures to the respondent security of tenure, quiet enjoyment, and freedom of action in respect of repairs and improvements without interference from the appellant. [1]
Case opinions
Decision byCumming-Bruce LJ
ConcurrenceOrr LJ
Lawton LJ
Keywords
Proprietary estoppel; reliance; detriment

Pascoe v Turner [1979] 1 WLR 431 is an English land law case, a case of proprietary estoppel.

Contents

Facts

The husband, was a fairly successful man of commerce and at all material times was and had been building up some capital assets which he invested in purchases of private and commercial property. After 10 years living in a house registered in his name with his wife, he left for a mistress. Soon he offered marriage, which she declined. They found a house in 1965 which he bought and he thereafter clearly assured her it would be hers. On the back of this she redecorated, buying carpets and curtains, improved and repaired, but there was never any written agreement or conveyance. Work she carried out and/or paid for:

  1. Partly replumbing house, providing hot water from immersion system to kitchen and installing new sink unit and other fitments. Installing gas into the kitchen.
  2. Joining outside toilet to rear door of premises by a blockwork-covered way.
  3. Installing gas conduits and installing a gas fire into the lounge.
  4. Repairing and retiling the roof where necessary and repairing lead valleys.
  5. Repairing and redecorating interior. So she stayed on. He lived nearby and sometimes visited her. She continued to collect some rents for him. [1]

Then there was a quarrel. He decided to throw her out of the house if he could. In April 1976 his solicitors wrote to her giving her two months notice "to determine her licence to occupy", and demanded possession in June 1976. She refused to go. [1]

In this action he sued her for possession of what he regarded as his legal home; she counterclaimed for an order to give effect that he held the house on trust for her (and her heirs and assigns absolutely) and that the contents of the house belonged to her. [1]

Judgment

The Court of Appeal held the mistress occupied the house under a bare licence, and had received an imperfect gift of the house. No trust could be inferred, but the encouragement to improve the house in the belief it was hers created a proprietary estoppel. A mere licence can be defeated by a sale of the house, so to comply with equity the legal owner, her ex-cohabitee was ordered to execute a conveyance. [1]

Cases applied

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Estoppel</span> Preventive judicial device in common law

Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person being sanctioned is "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. It is also a concept in international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Estoppel in English law</span>

Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts which is different from an earlier set of facts.

<i>Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset</i>

Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset[1990] UKHL 14 is an English land law, trusts law and matrimonial law case. It specifically deals with the translation into money of physical contributions from a cohabitee or spouse, under which its principles have been largely superseded.

<i>Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust</i>

Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust[1999] UKHL 26 is an English land law case that examined the rights of a 'tenant' in a situation where the 'landlord', a charitable housing association had no authority to grant a tenancy, but in which the 'tenant' sought to enforce the duty to repair on the association implied under landlord and tenant statutes. The effect of the case is to create the relationship of de facto landlord and tenant between the parties.

<i>Re Ellenborough Park</i>

Re Ellenborough Park[1955] EWCA Civ 4 was an English land law case which reformulated the tests for an easement. It found an easement to use a communal garden to be a valid easement in law. There is no requirement for all of the houses to be immediately next to the garden to benefit from it.

<i>DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC</i>

DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 WLR 852 is a UK company law case where, on the basis that a company should be compensated for loss of its business under a compulsory acquisition order, a group was recognised as a single economic entity. It stands as a liberal example of when UK courts may lift the veil of incorporation of a company.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Law of Property Act 1989 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament, which laid down a number of significant revisions to English property law.

<i>Crabb v Arun DC</i> English land and contract law case

Crabb v Arun District Council [1975] EWCA Civ 7 is a leading English land law and contract case concerning "proprietary estoppel". Lord Denning MR affirmed that where agreements concern the acquisition of rights over land, there is no need for both parties to provide a consideration for upholding the bargain. While promissory estoppel cannot found a cause of action it was held that in the peculiar situation of land, consideration is not necessary at all.

<i>Street v Mountford</i>

Street v Mountford[1985] UKHL 4 is an English land law case from the House of Lords. It set out principles to determine whether someone who occupied a property had a tenancy, or only a licence. This mattered for the purpose of statutory tenant rights to a reasonable rent, and had a wider significance as a lease had "proprietary" status and would bind third parties.

Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd[2008] UKHL 55 is a House of Lords case in English land law and relates to proprietary estoppel in the multi-property developer context. The court of final appeal awarded the project manager £150,000 on a quantum meruit basis for unjust enrichment because Yeoman's Row had received the benefit of his services without paying for that. The court refused to find or acknowledge a binding contract, prior arrangement with a third party or promise, overturning a £2m award on the basis of a possible lien arising from a promise over the property. The court found a non-binding agreement in principle, entirely subject to the owner's final say to take into account for example their view of the market; this was the basis on the facts on which the parties were proceeding.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proprietary estoppel</span>

Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary estoppel transfers rights if

<i>Jennings v Rice</i>

Jennings v Rice is an English land law case concerning proprietary estoppel.

<i>Dillwyn v Llewelyn</i>

Dillwyn v Llewelyn [1862] is an 'English' land, probate and contract law case which established an example of proprietary estoppel at the testator's wish overturning his last Will and Testament; the case concerned land in Wales demonstrating the united jurisdiction of England and Wales.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English land law</span> Law of real property in England and Wales

English land law is the law of real property in England and Wales. Because of its heavy historical and social significance, land is usually seen as the most important part of English property law. Ownership of land has its roots in the feudal system established by William the Conqueror after 1066, and with a gradually diminishing aristocratic presence, now sees a large number of owners playing in an active market for real estate.

<i>Earl of Oxfords case</i>

Earl of Oxford's case (1615) 21 ER 485 is a foundational case for the common law world, that held equity takes precedence over the common law.

Eves v Eves [1975] EWCA Civ 3 is an English land law case, concerning constructive trusts of the family home.

<i>National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth</i>

National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] is an English land law and family law case, concerning the quality of a person's interest in a home when people live together, as well as licenses in land.

<i>Gillett v Holt</i>

Gillett v Holt [2000] is an English land law case concerning proprietary estoppel and a farming businesses' dispute. The case focussed on a farmer of a portfolio of farming businesses without any obvious heirs who made many promises and assurances of inheritance to two partial farm managers who were neighbours or tenants of his, one of whom had farmed for 38 years, the other co-farmed for the last 5 years of those 38 years.

<i>Greasley v Cooke</i>

Greasley v Cooke [1980] 3 All ER 710 is an English land law case concerning proprietary estoppel.

Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18 is an English land law case, concerning proprietary estoppel.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Authorised Transcript at baillii.org