Proprietary Estoppel

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s): 80
  • 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...
tracking img