A coherent doctrine of Estoppel

A paper on the coherence of estoppel as a form of reliance-based claims in private law.

Promises, Promises...Family Farms and Estoppel (Again)

Family farms are a fertile source of litigation, especially when it comes to succession planning and inter-generational transfers. The problems are obvious: large value assets, emotional ties to the land, a lack of retirement planning and the ‘older’ generation’s unwillingness to relinquish control, and managing the expectations of siblings or others who have worked on the farm. Recent years have seen a spate of estoppel cases involving farms in both Northern Ireland and England and Wales, brought by children, nephews, close friends and long-term partners who were promised or had expected to inherit farms. The recent decision of the English Court of Appeal in Davies v Davies is another example, this time involving an adult daughter who had worked on her parents’ farm for years in the belief that it would pass to her. When her parents changed their minds, this particular daughter brought a successful proprietary estoppel claim. The issue then turned to satisfying the claim, and what financial remedy the daughter was entitled to.

Lexis Nexis Questions and Answers : Equity and Trusts [4th Ed.]

"LexisNexis Questions and Answers: Equity and Trusts provides students with a clear and systematic approach to successfully analysing and answering assessment questions on equity and trusts. Each chapter commences with a discussion of key principles and issues including a summary of relevant leading cases and legislation for effective revision. Examples of written questions with fact scenarios follow, each with a suggested answer plan, sample answer and comments on how the answer might be viewed by an examiner. Readers are provided with advice on common errors to avoid when answering questions and practical hints and tips on how to achieve higher marks. Features • Summary of key issues helps students revise key areas before attempting problem questions • Sample questions with model answers assist students with effective exam study preparation"--publisher website

Equity in Australian estate litigation

Equitable claims are increasingly arising in Australian estate litigation, particularly in conjunction with family provision applications. Since the leading decision in Bridgewater v Leahy, in addition to undue influence and unconscionable bargain claims, actions based on equitable estoppel, constructive and resulting trusts, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of legislative duties that mirror equitable obligations are increasingly being brought in contemporary estate litigation. Such litigation often raises challenging issues for claimants, including evidentiary hurdles and allegations of undue delay, especially when claims are made post-mortem in relation to inter vivos dealings with property. Accordingly, solicitors need to ensure that they fully understand the nature and potential application of equitable claims in estate litigation, or face the prospect of incurring liability to clients for professional negligence. This article explores recent trends in Australian estate litigation involving equitable claims.

The promised land

Examines the House of Lords ruling in Thorner v Curtis on whether the claimant could rely on proprietary estoppel against the estate of the deceased, who had died intestate, based on an assurance given by the deceased that the claimant would inherit the deceased's farm. Reviews case law on proprietary estoppel and testamentary promises, and considers the possible application of constructive trust doctrine in similar cases.

Beneficial entitlement: no longer doing justice?

Discusses the House of Lords ruling in Stack v Dowden on the size of each legal owner's share of the equity in the family home in the event of the relationship breakdown of an unmarried couple. Considers whether the parties intended their beneficial interests to be different to their legal interests in the property. Comments on the court's primary concern of establishing, from the parties' conduct, their intention as regards beneficial ownership. Looks at whether indirect financial contributions give rise to a beneficial interest under a constructive trust and notes the relevance of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.

Chattels: I have bought it all for you

Outlines the ways by which personal property can be acquired through the gift of chattels, referring to case law including the Court of Appeal rulings in Re Cole (A Bankrupt) and Re Kirkland, and through the declaration of trust, with reference to the Chancery Division ruling in Rowe v Prance. Compares this to the use of constructive trusts or proprietary estoppel to secure assets and considers the need to prove detrimental reliance.

Joint ownership and beneficial entitlement: Stack v Dowden.

Explores the issue of the share of beneficial entitlement to the family home where the legal title is jointly owned, but where there has not been an express declaration of a beneficial joint tenancy. Discusses the House of Lords judgment in Stack v Dowden which addressed this point. Explains how the judges moved the focus away from the court imposing its own sense of fairness on the parties or imputing an intention based on the circumstances to one where the concentration will be on the parties' relevant conduct. Outlines three other points of interest referred to in the judgment: (1) whether an indirect financial contribution could support a constructive trust; (2) whether proprietary estoppel and common intention constructive trusts should be assimilated; and (3) whether a mortgage liability is equivalent to a financial contribution.

Constructive thinking

Discusses the House of Lords ruling in Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd on whether the doctrine of constructive trust, as an alternative to proprietary estoppel, could be invoked by a property developer under the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s.2(5) where an agreement for the acquisition of an interest in land failed to comply with s.2(1), but where the developer had incurred expenditure obtaining planning permission to develop the property. Reflects on whether there are circumstances in which the courts will find a constructive trust in order to avoid the effects of s.2(1).

Expectations and promises

Discusses the Chancery Division judgment in Thorner v Curtis on a claim by an unpaid farm worker, who was led to expect that he would inherit the farm. Examines whether proprietary estoppel could be proved even if the deceased landowner made no express promise. Reviews case law on proprietary estoppel.

Testamentary promises

Comments on the Court of Appeal ruling in Thorner v Curtis on whether, where the owner of a farm died intestate, the claimant, who had worked on the farm for years and had come to believe that he would inherit the farm, could rely on proprietary estoppel based on hints and remarks made over the years by the deceased, even though the deceased had made no express promise. Reviews case law on proprietary estoppel.

A clear direction

Comments on the House of Lords decision in Thorner v Curtis, also referred to as Thorner v Major, on whether an unpaid farm labourer could rely on assurances made by the farmer that he would inherit the farm, to establish proprietary estoppel when the farmer died intestate. Considers whether the assurances had been clear and whether the property to be inherited could be specifically identified. Notes the Lords' consideration of the possible existence of a constructive trust. [From Legal Journals Index]

Estoppe right there

Examines the House of Lords judgment in Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd on whether an experienced property developer was entitled to relief on the basis of proprietary estoppel for the cost of obtaining planning permission to demolish an existing property and build new houses under a non-binding oral agreement. Sets out two requisite conditions needed when deciding whether estoppel existed. Considers whether unconscionability was a separate element in making a claim for proprietary estoppel. [From Legal Journals Index]

Back to the bad old days?

Reviews the Court of Appeal decision in James v Thomas that a cohabitee had not acquired an equitable interest in a property registered in her former partner's sole name through a constructive trust, based on express or inferred common intention, or by proprietary estoppel. Highlights the inconsistent approach of the courts to cohabitee disputes. Outlines the Law Commission's proposals in its 2007 report, Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown, notes the factors to be taken into account by the courts, and speculates on the case's outcome if the proposals were applied. [From Legal Journals Index]