Proprietary Estoppel

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s): 219
  • Published: July 13, 2011
Read full document
Text Preview
| Contents| Page No:|
1. | List of Authorites (Cases & Statutes)| 2|
2. | Answers (Mainbody & Conclusion)| 3-10|

List of Authorities:
Cases :
1. Crabb v Arun
2. Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Tress House Ltd 3. Ramsden v Ryson
4. Willmott v Barber
5. Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co. Ltd 6. Matharu v Matharu
7. Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Trustees Co
8. Gillet v Holt
9. Dillwyn v Llewellyn
10. Inwards v Baker
11. Jennings v Rice
12. Lloyds Bank v Carrick
13. Birmingham Midshires Mortgage Services Ltd v Sabherwal 14. City of London Building Society V Flegg

Statutes :
1. LRA 1925 S. 70(1)(g)

‘’Critically assess the contribution that the equitable doctrine of proprietary estoppels makes to modern land law.’’ During the Norman conquest in 1066, William the Conqueror instead of rewarding his followers with money and titles, he in-turn awarded them titles to lands and, in turn depleting the native-landholders of their lands.  However, William claimed ultimate possession of virtually all the land in England over which his armies had given him de facto control, and asserted the right to dispose of it as he saw fit. Henceforth, all land was "held" from the King. Initially, William confiscated the lands of all English lords who had fought and died with Harold and redistributed most of them to his Norman supporters (though some families were able to "buy back" their property and titles by petitioning William). These initial confiscations led to revolts, which resulted in more confiscations, in a cycle that continued virtually unbroken for five years after the Battle of Hastings. To put down and prevent further rebellions the Normans constructed castles and fortifications in unprecedented numbers, initially mostly on the motte-and-bailey pattern. The conquest of England and the unrivaled possession of lands by the King, shaped the law regarding title to lands of the United Kingdom, the theory carried forward was ‘All lands belongs to the Crown and the only person who is capable of owning land is the Monarch.’ This theory basically means that the subject cannot own the land upon which he lives of runs his business, but he is allowed the use of the land by the Crown. What the subject own s is a series of rights and duties in relation to that piece of land. Understandably lawyers have given a name to the interest in land which the subject holds, and that name is an ‘estate in land’. So the land belongs to the Crown and the subject owns an estate in the land, which gives him certain rights in relation to it. Thus a freehold owner to render services to the Crown in return for the right to use the land, but these services are now performed only in the rarest of cases and tend to be regarded as an honor rather than as an obligation (for example, the duty to supply a pair of gloves for the monarch to wear at his coronation).

The Doctrine of Estoppels in modern day land law, is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude "a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied. The term Estoppel derives from the French word estoupail which means “stopper plug’’,  referring to placing a halt on the imbalance of the situation. Where a court finds that a party has done something warranting a form of estoppel, that party is said to be "estopped" from making certain related arguments or claiming certain related rights. The defendant is said to be "estopped" from presenting the related defence, or the plaintiff is said to be "estopped" from making the related argument against the defendant. Lord Coke stated, "It is called an estoppel or conclusion, because a man's...
tracking img