ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø

View the related practice notes about Proprietary estoppel

Proprietary estoppel for property disputes lawyers

This Practice Note discusses issues that arise in proprietary estoppel in a property context. For a general discussion of proprietary estoppel, see Practice Note: Proprietary estoppel.The doctrine of proprietary estoppelProprietary estoppel is a means by which property interests can be affected or created, so as to make the assertion of strict rights unconscionable. The estoppel gives rise to ‘an equity’ in favour of the person who is entitled to assert the estoppel. Unlike other kinds of estoppel, it gives rise to a cause of action.Proprietary estoppel arises where:•an owner of land (D) makes an assurance or promise, or gives encouragement, to another party (C) to believe that they have or will enjoy some right or benefit over D’s property•C reasonably relies on that assurance, promise or encouragement•C suffers detriment as a result of its reliance•then D seeks to take unconscionable advantage of C by denying them the right or benefit which they expected to receiveAlthough all these elements must usually be satisfied, it is wrong to treat them as rigidly...

Creating a valid contract—statutory exceptions

The requirements set out in section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A 1989) do not apply to certain contracts and trusts. This Practice Note sets out what those contracts and trusts are, and how the exceptions are implemented.Excepted contractsThe contractual formalities set out in LP(MP)A 1989, s 2 do not apply to contracts:•for leases not exceeding three years (ie short leases under Law of Property Act 1925, s 54)•made in the course of a public auction•regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (other than a regulated mortgage contract, regulated home reversion plan, regulated purchase plan or a regulated sale and rent back agreement)Constructive trustsThe statutory formalities set out in Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, s 2 do not affect the creation or operation of resulting, implied or constructive trusts. They are not required to be evidenced in writing.A constructive trust arises in connection with the legal title to property where one party has so conducted themselves that it would be inequitable...

View the related precedents about Proprietary estoppel

Cohabitant claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996—client guide

Cohabitant claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996—client guide This document provides general guidance regarding the property rights of cohabitants and claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Your family lawyer will be able to provide specific advice based on your circumstances. Who can apply? Cohabitants do not have the same rights to make property claims as married couples or civil partners. Instead, disputes between cohabitants regarding their interests in a property are determined in accordance with the law of trusts. The 'common law' wife or husband does not exist in law, and claims by cohabitants are very limited in comparison with spouses or civil partners. In some circumstances it may be possible to make a claim on behalf of a child (see: Financial arrangements for children—client guide). There are two main ways in which a cohabitant may have an interest in a property: • as a joint owner, or • where the property is in the...

Letter of claim—proprietary estoppel claim

Letter of claim—proprietary estoppel claim Dear [insert organisation name] Our Client: [insert name] Your Client: [insert name] Re: [insert property address] We act on behalf of [insert name]. This is our letter of claim in relation to our client’s claim to [an interest in] the property known as [insert property address] (the Property) by virtue of proprietary estoppel. Background [Provide a summary of the relevant factual background.] Our client’s proprietary estoppel claim In summary, as explained above, [representor] repeatedly represented to our client that [insert details of what the claimant says was represented to them]. Our client trusted [representor] and relied on the promises and representations [representor] made to [him/her] to [his/her] detriment, in particular by [summarise the strongest 2 or 3 points on detriment]. It is therefore unconscionable for our client not to receive [explain what the claimant says they should receive] and for the Property to instead [explain the status quo, ie what would happen to the property but for the claimant’s claim]. Law As...

View the related q&as about Proprietary estoppel

If a beneficial joint tenancy is severed, is it possible to establish an unequal division of the beneficial interest either at the time of severance or over the course of subsequent dealings?

If a beneficial joint tenancy is severed, is it possible to establish an unequal division of the beneficial interest either at the time of severance or over the course of subsequent dealings? Severance is the mechanism by which the beneficial ownership of property is divided into shares. An express declaration of a beneficial joint tenancy results in the joint tenants being given equal shares if the joint tenancy is severed (see Goodman v Gallant and Fantini v Scrutton. Where the property was transferred to joint owners without any express declaration of trust, there is a presumption that a beneficial joint tenancy was intended and that on severance each joint

View the related News about Proprietary estoppel

Property Disputes weekly highlights—17 April 2025

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: High Court decisions concerning a loan agreement found to constitute an enforceable, unregulated investment property loan, a claim for unjustified enrichment relating to work carried out on a residential property and analysis of the grant of an order for possession and sale due to the vesting of property in trustees, an appellant who was barred from pursuing a new claim for the first time on appeal, and an Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision concerning the First-tier Tribunal’s appearance of bias in raising and determining an unpleaded issue in contractual liability for service charges dispute. It also includes a Court of Appeal decision that disclosure by the court of an assessor’s evaluation of evidence is not required unless fairness demands it, a Country Court decision concerning the vesting of a new lease of a whole building that must be made on terms equivalent to the forfeited head lease, analysis of the treatment of principal secured debt under a mental health crisis moratorium,...

Private Client weekly highlights—8 June 2018

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Tish v Olley on the interpretation of ambiguous Will clauses, (2) Permissibility of in specie pension contributions, (3) the OTS report on simplifying the taxation of savings income, and (4) the FTT’s dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal in Glyn v HMRC.