PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL NOTES

The law of formalities – proprietary rights in land – lease, easements, mortgage, payments –
these are forever rights – if you give such an important thing to someone – you want it to be
in writing – historically – courts said you can give proprietary rights orally as well – oral done
– this is law of 1700’s – if oral is valid and I die – end of the day the problem is fraud –
chances of fraud are increased – administrative issues for courts – courts time is wasted –
there is no certainty in law – you can park a car in my house / it can also be a personal rights
– as time passed by and cases increased – Parliament said today’s law is proprietary rights
are only valid if it is in writing – if not in writing – no right – if you have not taken it in
writing, it is your fault – courts time will be saved – when people will know the law, they will
take everything in signing and when it’s about signing – everybody thinks and signs – law of
formalities is important and it should not be ended
One problem that courts and Parliament could not change was if a father says to his
daughters and sons that when I die, building is yours and bungalow is your sisters –
buildings value is lessened – bungalows value is more due to commercial usage – brother
intentions turn bad and said that father did not say anything – the building and bungalow
should be 50-50 – if you ask your father to give it in writing – he will not give it – in domestic
and social (friends) context it is not given in writing – this is human reality of society – you
cannot change this reality – if law is strict then problem will be in domestic and social and it
will be unjust

-They introduced doctrine of proprietary estoppel through which oral rights can be made
valid and without it being in writing
In courts you have to prove 4 points (Taylor Fashions v. Liverpool Victoria Trustees)
1. Assurance – promise – father said building is yours after I die – there are two
contexts domestic and social – it is wide in commercial context and proprietary
estoppel is nearly obsolete
In domestic – promise can be express, implied or even by silence
Matharu v. Matharu case – husband and wife – husband lived with father and
mother – wife had an impression in mind that the house is her husband’s – it was
important for her because she was a house wife and had no emotional backing – if
the husband dies, if there will be a roof on her head or not – law for matrimonial
homes in UK – if husband dies and house goes to will to anybody – the wife will have
a lease of life – the house was in parents in law’s name and they knew it that she
was being stupid that the house is her husband’s – they always said our everything is
our sons – husband died – parents in law told the wife to leave – courts said
domestic context – implied assurance – by behavior
Domestic – (Thorner v. Major)
In commercial context there is zero assurance – Cobbe case – building case – gov
permission – price locked – I went and did my work and got permission – later he
said price is increased – no assurance – why did you not take it in writing
2. Reliance – reliance on the assurance – if father said building will be yours and
daughter put 3 crores in the building maintenance and repairs – she relied on the
promise
3. Detriment – nuksaan – monetary and non-monetary – monetary – daughter put 3
crores – non monetary – wife maintained the house and did hard work because she
thought it was her own house – both will amount to detriment

4. Unconscious ability – injustice – case to case basis

Remedies
Historically - whatever the judges liked and justice, they gave it – no guidance - if
they thought lease, money or easement – they gave it – problem is PE became a
jackpot if you get a good judge but if you get a strict judge then not – law was
uncertain – criticism – superior courts work is to give guidance and rules and set
precedents – COA was asked for guidelines
Today’s concept - in the case of Jennings v. Rice – they gave the concept of minimum
equity – whatever you give has to be proportionate to the detriment
Remedies are unlimited but certainty came to some extent

Gillet v. Holt – a person worked on a farm for 40 years and left his LLB degree – the
owner told him when I die I will give you the land – land lord denied later – he was
given the whole land by courts on the basis of proprietary estoppel