Proprietary Estoppel Essay

1496 Words3 Pages

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

Open Document