Q: My
father allowed a lady and her five children to live on his land and chattel
house. It has been about 8 years and he has decided he wanted to make
improvements. The "lady" has never paid rent. He asked the
"lady" to leave and she took him to court claiming she made
renovations to the home. The case was heard in court and she was awarded the
house and my father remains the landowner. How is this possible??
 |
| The text I used in Law school |
A: He
lost because of the doctrine of Proprietary
Estoppel
Proprietary estoppel arises where:-
(a) the owner of land (O) induces, encourages or
allows the Claimant (C) to believe that he has or will enjoy some right or
benefit over O’s property
(b) in reliance upon this belief, C acts to his detriment** to the
knowledge of O and
(c) O then seeks to take unconscionable advantage of
C by denying him the right or benefit which he expected to receive
The leading case on the
matter is Dillwyn v Llewelyn [1862]:
The
father thought he had given his younger son land in Wales, in signing a
memorandum and presenting it to him “for the purpose of furnishing himself with
a dwelling-house”. The memorandum was not by deed. The son built his home on
the land. When the father died, the elder son disputed his brother’s title.
It
is just as easy to fall into the other category of estoppel; Promissory Estoppel.
Promissory Estoppel is when one party depends on
the promise or conduct of another and acts in his/her detriment in reliance on
that promise.
— First
established in: Hughes
v Metropolitan Railway (1877)
— Clearly
laid down in: Central
London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947]
— Fully
restated and defined by Lord Denning in: Combe v Combe [1951]
Proprietary estoppel can be used to take the owner to court, whereas, promissory estoppel can only be used as a defence when taken to court by the owner.
Equitable Estoppel: Possible
merger of Proprietary & Promissory Estoppel
In Waltons
Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988), the Court handed down
its most significant decision on the topic of estoppel. The significance of
this case was that it consolidated promissory and proprietary estoppels into
the single, and broader, principle of equitable
estoppel!
**Detriment
Alan v El Nasr [1972]
Detrimental reliance is not a
requirement of promissory estoppel. It only needs to be established that the
promisor has changed their position
Waltons Stores
(Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988)
However, …
minor expenditure such as day to day living expenses or minor repairs will not
qualify.
