Question Two Describe and explain, (with reference to the case law) the requirements of a successful proprietary estoppel? To what extent are these requirements influenced by the equitable notion of unconscionability? This essay will explore the requirements for a successful proprietary estoppel as established by case law, as well as looking at the relevance of the notion of unconscionability in achieving a successful claim. Proprietary Estoppel is an equitable remedy, established by Chancery Court of King John, to help resolve the issue with ownership of land/property, and when successful creates new ownership right for the claimant. There are three different forms of proprietary estoppel, first being the acquiescence approach as described …show more content…
This enabled judges to see if B reliance, would cause him to suffer a detriment if he had no proprietary estoppel claim against A; this is often where unconscionability comes into play. The case of Gillett v Holt9, both showcases detriment, and the role of unconscionability in a successful claim. Gillett worked on Holt's farm for 38 years, during that time, he took on extra responsibilities and developed a quite close relationship with Holt; Holt allowed Gillett to move into a farmhouse his company brought, and on many occasions (such as his first child christening) promised Gillett that he will get the farm. This amounts to an assurance, on which Gillett relied on as showcased by him renovating the farmhouse (at his own expense) which was inhabitable when he first moved in. Another aspect of his reliance was Gilletts rejection of other better job offers, as he was under the assurance on which he relied on from Holt that he would inherit the farm. Later Holt attempted to fire Gillett and evict him from the farmhouse; the court considered whether it would be unjust or inequitable to allow the assurance made by Holt to be disregarded? This became an essential test of unconscionability, in simpler terms one can explain this test as- would it be fair on B, if the court made A's assurance invalid, how much detriment would B receive? Is the assurance and B's reliance on …show more content…
Lord Walker in Gillett v Holt stated “the fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the element of the doctrine. In the end the court must look at the matter in the round...”12 thus statement introduces unconscionability as a requirement for proprietary estoppel, where it works conjointly with the assurance, reliance and detriment, when taking a holistic approach into the analysis of individual cases. This view is supported by Lord Scott in the case of Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Limited13- “unconscionability of conduct may well lead to a remedy but, in my opinion proprietary estoppel cannot be the route to it unless the ingredients for proprietary estoppel are present.”14 Lord Scott reinforces the belief that unconscionability is a mechanism which gives the requirements enforceability. The case of Taylors Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees; Old & Campbell v Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society15 showcased the role of unconscionability; Taylors and Old were both under the mistaken belief they could extend their lease. Both parties made improvements on their properties- Taylor without reinforcement, however Olds was reinforced by Liverpool who was
The facts of Mary’s case share great similarities with that of the case Walsh v Greater Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (No. 2) [2014]. Indeed, Mary’s case seems particularly strong as the defendant’s under performance has been documented frequently. However, the pivot on which this case rests is that of a workplace right enabling the employee to “make a compliant or injury… in relation to their employment. In advising Mary counsel finds that whilst the issue may seem straightforward, it is highly likely that the court will find that in lieu of the evidence provided which establishes Simon’s under performance and unruly behaviour that adverse action was taken on the premises of his underperformance. Counsel, will also argue
The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales. - Counsel [24] See footnote 22 – but page 61 [25] GEOFFREY, Marshall, Constitutional Theory, Clarendon Law Series, Oxford 1971 Chapter1 – the Law and the constitution, part 3. Dicey’s doctrine and its critics. [26] REGINA v HER MAJESTY'S TREASURY, Ex parte SMEDLEY, [COURT OF APPEAL], [1985] Q B 657, 19 December 1984, (c)2001 The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales [27] MITCHELL, JDB, Constitutional Law, 2nd edition, Edinburgh, W Green & SON LTD, 1968, Convention, page 31 [28] See footnote 22 but page 64
Stephen Weatherill, “After Keck: Some Thoughts on how to Clarify the Clarification”, 33 Common Market Law Review. (1996)
The rise of the unprecedented ageing of the population in Australia has provoked a significant amount of interest being paid with regards to the difficulties facing elderly people who have become subject to various forms of abuse, including financial abuse. Subsequently, situations have arisen whereby an improper acquisition of the elder’s assets by their children or other relatives appointed to protect their interests has led to an increase in equitable doctrines being pleaded to set aside these transactions . Therefore, the purpose of this essay is to critically examine the ways in which the operation of the equitable doctrines of undue influence inter vivos and unconscionable dealings for the elderly claimant has been applied in the
In the Dominguez Supreme Court case, the “ unjustified assertion of power by one party” was used as grounds to meet the standard of outrageous conduct. There an agent for Equitable Life attempted to have a severely disabled man surrender his insurance policy by providing fraudulent medical documents stating he was no longer disabled. The court cited comment e in making the determination that the company’s control over his livelihood coupled with the action of stopping insurance payments was an abuse of power that made the conduct
There are few points that require strict considering before compensatory taking of any private property -
What are the necessary requirements of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel and discuss whether the notion of unconscionability alone lead to a successful remedy. Furthermore, examine how constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel allow the courts to stray from relevant statutory provisions and empowers judiciary to have more discretion where equitable remedies are queried.
Applying Hadley, in Victoria Laundry (Windsor) v Newman Industries claimants claim for the exceptional profits from some highly lucrative dying contracts but there was no way the defendant can reasonable foresee about this. Hence court of appeal disallowed this exceptional loss from failure to profit from highly lucrative dying contracts. Here, damages awarded does not put the claimants in the position they should have been had the contract been performed, which is without the delay as this exceptional loss of profits is held to be the same as the normal loss of profits. In Heron II , Victoria Laundry was criticised and where in order to separate between remoteness rule in tort and contract, courts consider remoteness based on whether
The doctrine of unconscionable bargains can be regarded as difficult to define but various cases have succeeded in refining the doctrine to a simple understanding. In Evans v Llewllin, unconscionable bargains is a well established jurisdiction in equity to relief against transaction regarded as considerably disadvantageous to the complainant, who is in a special position of weakness compared to the defendant and where transaction was procured by the defendant in a morally culpable manner. The power to provide equitable relief from unconscionable bargains stems from the Court of Chancery’s power to set aside agreements with expectant heirs that had been pressured into entering contracts as a result of their ignorance and poverty, this was evident in Earl of Aylesford v Morris. Fry v Lane established this principle of law, with Kay J stating that ‘where a purchase is made from a poor and ignorant man at a considerable undervalue, the vendor having no independent advice, a Court of Equity will set aside the transaction’. It is not enough for the terms of an agreement to be unconscionable or unfair, making it more favorable to the defendant than the complainant; it must show defendant’s conduct is unconscionable. Capper noted, the doctrine struggled in adapting to the declining need of expectant heirs in the early twentieth century and was abandoned until its reappearance in Cresswell v Potter where the elements of the doctrine where not just incorporated to suggest a party ‘’of a lower income group and less highly educated’’ but the concept in regards to expectant heirs was disregarded. Over the years it had become significantly popular in cases where one party had been mistreated due t...
... middle of paper ... ... Gonzaga Law Review 33.3 (1998): 653-668. HeinOnline.com -.
Further, the principle judgment delivered by Mason CJ within Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137; 62 ALJR 29 makes clear that within the property dispute as to the legal title, the avoidance of unconscionable conduct on the part taken by an individual outlines the essential concept of equity. The High Court established an equitable remedy of constructive trust on this basis of the prevention of unconscionable
Australia’s implementation of remedial institution allows courts to treat constructive trusts as an equitable remedy, that are discretionary in nature. This differs from England Courts where the institutional elements order that trusts arise upon the behaviour of the individuals rather than judicial discretion. Similarly, the use of discretion or lack of discretion by judges has major impacts on third parties who have an interest in the property. Problems within England’s institutional trusts states the possibility to render the action of the law ambiguous and place a greater burden on third parties. Suggestions in Varma v Varma state that courts should consider the influence of their verdict on third parties and provide relief accordingly.
Metropolitan Railway (1877)2 App Case 439. The owner of the property gave his tenant the option of repairing the property in six months or face forfeiture. Under the lease, Hughes, the owner, could make the tenant, Metropolitan Railway, do repairs on the building, so the tenant had six months to complete the repairs.before the six months had transpired, the tenant proposed to the owner to buy the property. There were negotiations for the purchase of the property but it wasn't settled. After the six months expired the owner sued the tenant for breach of contract and attempted to evict the tenant.
If it is so, whether the judge has any policy considerations to prevent from imposition of such duty. In this case, the local authority failed to notice that the building work which resulted in shallow foundations. The test laid down by Lord Wilberforce in Anns v Merton London Borough paved way for new areas of law such as pure economic loss and nervous shock.
The first point to note when analysing occupiers’ liability is that originally it was separate to the general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this “pigeon hole approach” was that the key decision of occupiers’ liability, Indermaur v Dames was decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it “… had become too firmly entrenched by 1932 … to be swamped by another judicial cross-current” Following on from Indermaur v Dames the courts developed four distinct categories of entrant which I will now examine in turn.