Proprietary estoppel

Last updated

In Greasley v Cooke, over a house in Riddings, the Court of Appeal affirmed that once an assurance is found, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that it was not relied up to the claimant's detriment. Park Mews, Church Street, Riddings - 594693.jpg
In Greasley v Cooke , over a house in Riddings, the Court of Appeal affirmed that once an assurance is found, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that it was not relied up to the claimant's detriment.

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

Contents

If these elements of assurance, reliance and detriment, and unconscionability are present, the usual remedy will be that the property will be transferred to the claimant, if the court views the reliance to warrant a claim in all the circumstances.

History

In 1862, in Dillwyn v Llewelyn , a son was held to have acquired a house from his father because he was given a written notice that he would, despite never having completed a deed for conveyance, after the son spent time and money improving the property. [1] In Willmott v Barber [2] Fry J considered that five elements had to be established before proprietary estoppel could operate: [3]

These elements were, however, refined by future case law over the later 20th century and in the early 21st century. Indeed, the High Court in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [4] recognised that both the principles of proprietary and promissory estoppel encompass the broader principle of equitable estoppel. [5]

Acquisition of rights

Proprietary estoppel is one of four principal mechanisms to acquire rights over property, seen particularly in the case of land (the others being a contract, an implied trust, and adverse possession). Unlike a contract or gift, which depend on consent, or resulting and constructive trusts that depend primarily on the fact of contribution, a proprietary estoppel arises when a person has been given a clear assurance, it was reasonable of them to rely on the assurance, and they have acted to their detriment. This threefold pattern of proprietary estoppel (clear assurance, reasonable reliance and substantial detriment) makes it consistent with its partner in the law of obligations, "promissory estoppel".

Although English law has not yet recognised promissory estoppel as giving rise to a cause of action (as has been done under the American Restatement (Second) of Contracts §90 and by the Australian High Court in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [4] ), in Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd Lord Scott remarked that proprietary estoppel should be seen as a sub-species of promissory estoppel. [6] In all cases it allows people who act on others' assurances about legal rights, even without them attaining express agreement. For example, in Crabb v Arun District Council a farmer acquired the right to a path over the council's land, because they had assured him that if he sold off one portion an access point would remain. [7] In all cases, the minimum pattern of an assurance, reliance and some form of detriment is present.

The High Court also recently confirmed that the onus of proof in relation to detrimental reliance cannot be shifted to the estopped party. [8]

Reliance

Proprietary estoppel case law has, however, divided on the question of what kind of assurance and what kind of reliance must be present. In Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd , a property developer claimed an interest in a group of Knightsbridge flats after his expense in obtaining council planning permission. [6] Mr Cobbe had made an oral agreement with the flat owner, Mrs Lisle-Mainwaring, to get the flats at £12m, but once permission was obtained, the owner broke her oral promise. Even so, in the House of Lords Mr Cobbe failed in his claim for anything more than the expense (£150,000) of getting the planning, because in this commercial context it was clear that formal deeds were needed for completion of any deal. By contrast, in Thorner v Major , David (a second cousin) worked on Peter's farm for 30 years and believed he would inherit it. [9] This probably was intended but after Peter fell out with other relatives, he destroyed his will, leaving David with nothing. Even though no specific assurance, and only some vague conduct indicating an assurance, was present, the House of Lords held that David had a good proprietary estoppel claim. Lord Hoffmann remarked that if a reasonable person could understand, however oblique and allusive, that an assurance was given, a legal right would accrue. The tendency of the cases is therefore to recognise claims more in the domestic context, in which less formal assurances are common, and less in the commercial context, where formality is normal. [10]

Remedial flexibility

A difficult issue, however, in awarding a remedy for estoppel is that unlike a contract it is not always apparent that a claimant should receive the full measure of what they had expected. By contrast, the factual pattern of estoppels, which often appear something very close to a contract, often seem to warrant more than an award for damages to compensate claimants for the amount of detriment, or loss, as in a tort case. In Jennings v Rice , Robert Walker LJ tackled the issue by emphasising that the purpose of the court's jurisdiction was to avoid an unconscionable result, and to ensure that a remedy was based on proportionality. [11] Here, Mr Jennings had worked as a gardener for a Mrs Royle since the 1970s, but the administrator of her estate had no will. Mr Jennings had been told he "would be alright" and more so that "this will all be yours one day". The Court of Appeal resolved, however, that not the full estate, worth £1.285m, but only £200,000 would be awarded in view of the actual detriment incurred by Mr Jennings and the uncertainty of what his assurances really meant. In relation to third parties, the remedy for proprietary estoppel has been confirmed to bind others by the Land Registration Act 2002 section 116.

In Giumelli v Giumelli, notwithstanding that the High Court of Australia held that the requirements of proprietary estoppel had been established, the plaintiff was not awarded a proprietary interest in the land. Instead, monetary compensation was ordered by the Court in taking into account of other factors, such as other family members had worked and lived the land. [12]

Outside English law

The term "proprietary estoppel" is not used in American law, but is part and parcel of the general doctrine of promissory estoppel. In English law, proprietary estoppel is distinct from promissory estoppel.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862) 4 De GF&J 517
  2. ↑ (1880) 15 Ch D 96
  3. ↑ See also Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 29
  4. 1 2 Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [1988] HCA 7 , (1988) 164 CLR 387, High Court (Australia).
  5. ↑ Silovi Pty Ltd v Barbaro (1988) 13 NSWLR 466, 472. LawCite records
  6. 1 2 Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55 , House of Lords (UK)
  7. ↑ Crabb v Arun District Council [1975] EWCA Civ 7 , Court of Appeal (England and Wales).
  8. ↑ Van Dyke v Sidhu [2003] NSWCA 198.
  9. ↑ Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18 , House of Lords (UK).
  10. ↑ cf Taylor Fashions and Old & Campbell v Liverpool Victoria Trustees [1982] QB 133, where one business (Taylor) lost against a department store for a lease renewal because it would have improved premises anyway, but another (Old's) succeeded because it was specifically encouraged to make improvements.
  11. ↑ See also Henry v Henry [2010] UKPC 3 , [2010] 1 All ER 988, Privy Council (on appeal from Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court).
  12. ↑ Giumelli v Giumelli [1999] HCA 10 , (1999) 196 CLR 101, High Court (Australia).

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maxims of equity</span> Principles that govern the operation of equity within English law

Maxims of equity are legal maxims that serve as a set of general principles or rules which are said to govern the way in which equity operates. They tend to illustrate the qualities of equity, in contrast to the common law, as a more flexible, responsive approach to the needs of the individual, inclined to take into account the parties' conduct and worthiness. They were developed by the English Court of Chancery and other courts that administer equity jurisdiction, including the law of trusts. Although the most fundamental and time honored of the maxims, listed on this page, are often referred to on their own as the 'maxims of equity' or 'the equitable maxims',The first equitable maxim is 'equity delights in equality' or equity is equality Like other kinds of legal maxims or principles, they were originally, and sometimes still are, expressed in Latin.

<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">Specific performance</span> Equitable remedy in contract law

Specific performance is an equitable remedy in the law of contract, whereby a court issues an order requiring a party to perform a specific act, such as to complete performance of the contract. It is typically available in the sale of land law, but otherwise is not generally available if damages are an appropriate alternative. Specific performance is almost never available for contracts of personal service, although performance may also be ensured through the threat of proceedings for contempt of court.

<i>Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co</i>

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co [1877] is a House of Lords case considered unremarkable for many years until it was resurrected by Lord Denning in the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd in his development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The case was the first known instance of the concept of promissory estoppel.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constructive trust</span>

A constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed by a court to benefit a party that has been wrongfully deprived of its rights due to either a person obtaining or holding a legal property right which they should not possess due to unjust enrichment or interference, or due to a breach of fiduciary duty, which is intercausative with unjust enrichment and/or property interference. It is a type of implied trust.

Equitable remedies are judicial remedies developed by courts of equity from about the time of Henry VIII to provide more flexible responses to changing social conditions than was possible in precedent-based common law.

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

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

<i>Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher</i>

Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher, is a leading case in Australian contract law. The Australian High Court decided that estoppel, in certain circumstances could be a cause of action.

The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts. The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.

<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.

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.

<i>Yaxley v Gotts</i>

Yaxley v Gotts [1999] is an English contract law case with specific relevance to formalities in land law. The case deals with whether section 2 of the Law of Property Act 1989 which requires that contracts be in writing prevents an oral contract from taking effect where otherwise an interest would arise by proprietary estoppel, i.e. whether the provision in subsection 5 on resulting, implied or constructive trusts covers also proprietary estoppel.

<i>Jennings v Rice</i>

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

<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. The modern law's sources derive from the old courts of common law and equity, along with legislation such as the Law of Property Act 1925, the Settled Land Act 1925, the Land Charges Act 1972, the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and the Land Registration Act 2002. At its core, English land law involves the acquisition, content and priority of rights and obligations among people with interests in land. Having a property right in land, as opposed to a contractual or some other personal right, matters because it creates privileges over other people's claims, particularly if the land is sold on, the possessor goes insolvent, or when claiming various remedies, like specific performance, in court.

<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>Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd</i>

Taylor Fashions Ltd and Old & Campbell Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd [1979] is a leading case in English land law on proprietary estoppel. Due to a common mistake and no element of enticement to believe that mistake, estoppel was not available on the facts.

<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.

<i>Commonwealth v Verwayen</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Commonwealth v Verwayen, also known as the Voyager case, is a leading case involving estoppel in Australia. Bernard Verwayen sued the Australian government for damages caused by a collision between two ships of the Australian Navy. A representative of the Government initially indicated to Bernard Verwayen that the Government would not raise the statute of limitations as a defence to their negligence. In court however, the Government relied on this defence. While the decision of the High Court was split, a majority of judges found that the Government could not rely on this statement as a defence. Justices Toohey and Gaudron came to this conclusion on the basis that the Government had waived their right to rely on this defence. However, Justices Deane and Dawson came to this conclusion under the doctrine of estoppel, which provides that a defendant can not contradict a previous representation or promise made that has established an assumed state of legal affairs. This case is most frequently referred to in relation to its influence on the doctrine of estoppel.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.