This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Property, Equity and Trusts 1 Notes

Proprietary And Equitable Estoppel Notes

Updated Proprietary And Equitable Estoppel Notes

Property, Equity and Trusts 1 Notes

Property, Equity and Trusts 1

Approximately 320 pages

The old Property, Equity & Trusts subject at UNSW. Dealt primarily with old system. Contents include detailed case notes (and super summaries ideal for use in an open book exam) and article summaries on the following classes:
Class 1&2 – The Concept of Property
Class 3&4 - Goods
Class 5&6 - Possession of Land
Class 7 - Limitation of Actions
Class 8 - The Doctrine of Tenure and Estates; Determinable and Conditional and Future Interests, The Doctrine of Waste, Fragmentation of legal/beneficial...

Available here

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Property, Equity and Trusts 1 Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Proprietary and Equitable Estoppel

  • As it underpins constructive trust, the concept of unconscionability underpins the doctrine of proprietary estoppel; or the ‘doctrine of equity by acquiescence;

    • Though they are both based on unconscionability they developed as separate lines of authority but the relationship between them isn’t clearly defined

    • Sir Browne_Wilkinson suggested that proprietary estoppel cases can assist in determining whether a constructive trust should be imposed – the two principles have developed without cross-fertilization between them, but they rest on the same foundation and have on all other matters reached the same conclusion

Inward v Baker (1965) 2 QB 29

Facts: Mr Baker was the sole owner of land and his son was thinking of erecting a bungalow but couldn’t afford the land. His father said to build the bungalow on his land and so he did with his own labour and a lot of the expenses (which his father also pitched in, roughly 50/50). When he was finished he lived there and his father visited him from time to time. His father’s will left everything to his executrix (his wife who had 2 children’s that were trustees under the will) who initially didn’t take steps to get him out of the house (in fact visiting him) but later took proceedings to get him out. Her two children continued the proceedings as trustees.

Lord Denning MR:

Cited authorities (incl Dillwyn v Llewelyn) for the proposition that:

  • “if the owner of land requests/allows another to expend money on the land under an expectation created or encouraged by the landlord that he will be able to remain there, that raises an equity in the licensee such as to entitle him to stay. He has a license coupled with an equity”

It was submitted that this only applied where there was some precise legal term for the stay – but Plimmer v Wellington Corp makes it clear that the interest doesn't fail because the time isn’t expressly indicated – one must look to the circumstances of the case to see whether there is an equity arising from expenditure

  • All that is necessary is that the licensee should, with request/encouragement of the landlord, spend money on the xpectation of being allowed to stay here; the court won’t allow this expectation to be defeated where it would be inequitable to do so

  • Here it was clear the father allowed such an expectation that the bungalow was to be his home for life as long as he wished to remain. The father could not in light of this equity then turned the son out

  • Though it was put forth the possibility of a purchaser – this fails since a purchaser taking with notice would be bound by the equity. The plaintiffs, as successors in title as equally bound by this equity.

  • Dillwyn v Llewelyn – plaintiff’s father devises a real estate on trust for his widow for life, remainder on trust for plaintiff for life and remainder on certain other trusts. Father later expressed a wish that his son should live nearby and thus offered a farm to build a house on. He signed a memorandum stating he presented the farm to the son to build a house but the legal fee simple was never conveyed. With the father’s knowledge/approval a house built for 14k. On the father’s death the plaintiff brought action seeking a declaration of his rights and conveyance of the fee simple

    • Held: If A puts B into possession of land to build a house on it, and on the strength of it with A’s knowledge he expends money to do so; the donee acquires a right from this transaction to call on the donor to perform the contract and complete the imperfect donation.

  • Olsson v Dyson (acknowledges Dilywn but doesn't apply) – Dyson purported to assign a wife a debt owed to him by a company but didn’t satisfy the legal requirements for its assignment. After death his executors brought action against the company for the debt + interest.

    • Argued: The executors argued that the assignment was ineffective at law and equity could intervene to prefect the gift. Wife says she is entitled to it – says she abstained from taking testators’ family maintenance proceedings in reliance on the assignment of the debt being valid and Dilwyn applying

    • Held: Dilwyn doesn't apply since there was no evidence the testator adverted to the possibility that the wife would refrain from making a testators’ family maintenance application after his death, or act to her prejudice in reliance on the effectiveness of the gift. He didn’t encourage her to act in a manner prejudicial to her interest

  • Williams’s v State – defendants earlier held to have an ‘equitable license for life’ in a cottage. Judge applies Inwards v Baker. Cottage later sold to plaintiff who took notice of the interest. Defendants deliberately harassed defendants. Plaintiffs commence proceedings for possession.

    • Held at first instance: Conduct was so outrageous that it terminated their equitable right to remain

    • Held (Lord Denning): In extreme cases the conduct of the holder of an equity can be sufficient to end the equity but the remedy for bad conduct should usually be an action for an injunction or damages

    • Held (Goff, Gumming, Bruce LJJ): If legal owner was attempting to assert his legal rights and it was alleged that equity restrained him from doing so, the conduct of the holder of the alleged equity can be taken into account by the court in deciding whether to exercise the discretion in his favour.

      • But here the equity was already acquired before the bad conduct and hence it cant be revoked but the conduct can give rise to damage for trespass/nuisance etc.

Crabb v Arun District Council (1975) 3 All ER 865

Facts: Defendant council owned a road runnig between the plaintiff and their own land. The plaintiff had access at a point (A) on the road. He decided to divide his land, requiring a second point of access to allow egress from both divisions. A meeting took place between the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative and it was understood that he would have additional access...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Property, Equity and Trusts 1 Notes.

More Property, Equity And Trusts 1 Samples