Land Law - Proprietary Estoppel

Proprietary estoppel protects a person who has a non contractual agreement over land but they have suffered a detriment due to them acting upon a reliance based on an assurance made by the claimant. There has been much discussion in recent case law and academic commentaries as to the elements which make up the nature of proprietary estoppel. Unconscionaibility is a major point for discussion in deciding whether it should be treated as a separate element or if it is linked into the three main elements. This essay will consider and discuss the nature of proprietary estoppel and the two views on unconscionaibility; whether there will always be unconscionaibility if there has been a non-performance of an assurance causing the claimant to suffer a detriment based on the assurance which they relied on or if unconscionaibility should be proven as a separate element in each case.
The starting point of proprietary estoppel was in the case of Willmott v Barber (1880) where five criteria were laid down, which had to be satisfied by a person claiming proprietary estoppel and the courts applied these criteria to a wide range of proprietary estoppel claims. However these criteria were criticised for being too strict leading to the broader approach established in Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Trustees Co Ltd (1982) where Oliver J stated: ‘whether, in particular individual circumstances, it would be unconscionable for a party to be permitted to deny that which, knowingly or unknowingly, he has allowed or encouraged another to assume to his detriment’. Although the approach became broader there still remained essential elements which must be satisfied for a successful claim. The more modern approach towards proprietary estoppel is based on three main elements, firstly an assurance of land or property being made to the claimant, the claimant relying on the assurance which has been made and finally the claimant suffering a detriment as a consequence of relying on the assurance

Bibliography: Roger Sexton and Barbara Bogosz, Complete Land Law: text, cases and materials, (2nd edn. Oxford University Press 2011) Diane Chappelle, Land Law, (8th edn Martin Dixon “Proprietary Estoppel and Formalities in Land Law and the Land Registration Act 2002: A Theory of Unconscionaibility” (2003) 2 Modern Studies in Property Law -------------------------------------------- [ 1 ]. Roger Sexton and Barbara Bogosz, Complete Land Law: text, cases and materials, (2nd edn. Oxford University Press 2011) 323 [ 2 ] [ 3 ]. Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co. Ltd (1982) QB 133 [ 4 ] [ 5 ]. Nigel Gravells, Land Law: Text and materials, (4th edn. Sweet and Maxwell, London 2010) 589 [ 6 ] [ 7 ]. Inwards v Baker (1965) 2 QB 29 [ 8 ] [ 9 ]. Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd (2008) 1 WLR 1752 [ 10 ] [ 11 ]. Roger Sexton and Barbara Bogosz, Complete Land Law: text, cases and materials, (2nd edn. Oxford University Press 2011) 343 [ 12 ] [ 13 ]. Diane Chappelle, Land Law, (8th edn. Pearson Longman, London 2008) 90 [ 14 ] [ 15 ]. Roger Sexton and Barbara Bogosz, Complete Land Law: text, cases and materials, (2nd edn. Oxford University Press 2011) 338 [ 16 ] [ 17 ]. Greasley v Cooke (1980) 1 WLR 1306 [ 18 ] [ 21 ]. Martin Dixon “Proprietary Estoppel and Formalities in Land Law and the Land Registration Act 2002: A Theory of Unconscionaibility” (2003) 2 Modern Studies in Property Law, 179