Proprietary estoppel

Why is there proprietary estoppel?
To prevent unconscionable conduct in the situation of an unenforceable land contract.

3 examples of proprietary estoppel

1. Gift intended to the other party but formalities not complied with while the other party already incurred expenses relating to the subject matter in reliance of the giving party (Dillwyn v Llewelyn)
2. No clear express promise but the consistent dealings between the two parties are reasonable to cause the receiving party to believe that some proprietary rights could be acquired (Ramsden v Dyson) (Inwards v Baker)
3. A party mistaken about his proprietary right and acted detrimentally in reliance on the mistake while the other party willfully stood by and allow such detrimental mistake to eventuate. (Ramsden v Dyson)

5 requirements for the 3rd class of proprietary estoppel by Fry J (Willmott v Barber)

1. P must have made a mistake
2. P must have expended some money or must have done some act (not necessarily on D's land) in reliance on his mistaken belief
3. D must know of his own right which is inconsistent with the right mistakenly claimed by P
4. D must know of P's mistaken belief of his rights
5. D must have encourage P in his expenditure of money or in his other acts either directly or by abstaining from asserting his legal right

• The above test is not necessarily determinative though highly authoritative (Blue Haven v Tully)
• The above test seems to be only relevant to cases of mistake and case of acquiescence as in Bestkey v Fine Mansion
• To decide whether to use the test is to see whether the facts of the case resembles the facts of Willmott v Barber
• Burden of proof of the five probanda is on P. Difficult for P to prove D's knowledge

A broader test applicable to all 3 classes (Taylors Fashion) (P.98)

• 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. (p103 3rd para) 
• "Knowingly or unknowingly" makes the test more flexible than the 5 criterion 

Facts of Taylors Fashion

• There are 28 year lease with an option to renew 14 years at the end (unregistered)
• Failure of registering the option (a proprietary interest) means that the interest is not binding
• There was a mutual mistake and no party is to take advantage of the other

Modern approach: 3 elements of proprietary estoppel (Taylors Fashion) (Thorner v Major)
1) Assurance

• Assurance that led the P to believe that he had or would acquire rights over the land in question
• Assurances can be in the form of a direct and positive promise or a mere abstention from asserting one's right 
• A long standing practice, without more, cannot be an assurance (Keelwalk v Waller)
• Requirement: "the meaning of the words or conduct constituting the alleged assurance is clear and unequivocal" (Thorner v Major)
• A clear promise or representation does not have to amount to a binding contract (Inwards v Baker)
• Even if the contract is void for uncertainty it can still be an assurance (Lim Ten Huan v Ang Swee)
• Silent assurance or self-generated expectation NOT assurance (AG v Humphrey Estate) (difference between silent assurance with abstention from asserting one's right?)
• "Subject to contract" can precludes assurance and proprietary estoppel (AG v Humphrey)
• The key question is whether the parties intend and know that they are free to withdraw from the transaction (right to withdraw reserved?) (Kaisilk v Urban Renewal)

2) Reliance

• P acted in reliance on the assurance
• Key question: whether the representations were calculated to influence the judgment of P? (Birkom Investment v Carr)
• The presumption that P relied on the assurance is for D to rebut not P to prove (Birkom Investment v Carr)

3) Detriment

• Detriment needs not be monetary. 
• Detriment can be in the form of other disadvantages not related to land (P.116.8) : failure to reserve a right of way over the land sold; housekeeping in the family house; abandoning home and job in order to live near the owner; setting up house together, having a baby, making payment to househeeping expense (Grant v Edwards)
• Detriment CANNOT be e.g. allowed to put oil tank and flower pots on the wall for many years (Jones v Stones)
• 
  

**3 elements must be look at together not separately (Gillet v Holt)

Lecture on proprietary estoppel

Argument on whether proprietary estoppel is about mistake or expectation originated from Ramsden v Dyson

Tenant at will: a tenant that can be asked to leave at any time, no fixed period tenancy

Ramsden v Dyson - a tenant believed he was having a long fixed term lease but actually he was only a tenant at will

Crabb case
Lord denning p139

Short of an actual promise, if D, by his words or conduct, so behaves as to lead another to believe that he will not insist on his strict legal rights
Assurance can include actual promise, if D, by his words or conduct