Continue reading "Estoppel claims: Unconscionable behaviour"
This post is only available to members.
Estoppel claims: Unconscionable behaviour
Mark Pawlowski considers whether bad behaviour on the part of an estoppel claimant will deny or modify equitable relief Unconscionability is an overarching element operating in proprietary estoppel claims. Although a proprietary estoppel claim will fail unless the claimant is able to establish the three essential elements of assurance, reliance and detriment, it is evident …
Cases Referenced
Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.
- Baker v Baker and Baker [1993] EWCA Civ 17
- Beaton v McDivitt (1988) 13 NSWLR 162
- Brynowen Estates Ltd v Bourne (1981) 131 New LJ 1212
- Burrows & Burrows v Sharp (1991) 23 HLR 82
- Bye v Colvin-Scott, (unreported, 28 July 2009, Kingston-upon-Thames County Court)
- Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55
- Dodsworth v Dodsworth (1973) 228 EG 1115
- Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210
- Gonthier v Orange Contract Scaffolding Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 873
- Hardwick v Johnson [1978] 1 WLR 683
- Ildebrando de Franco v Stengold Ltd, (unreported, 14 May 1985, CA)
- J Willis & Son v Willis [1986] 1 EGLR 62
- Moore v Moore, (unreported, 19 August 2016, Bristol District Registry)
- Murphy v Burrows [2004] EWHC 1900 (Ch)
- Murphy v Rayner [2011] EWHC 1 (Ch)
- Sledmore v Dalby [1996] EWCA Civ 1305
- Uglow v Uglow [2004] EWCA Civ 987
- Vinden v Vinden [1982] 1 NSWLR 618
- Voyce v Voyce [1991] 62 P & CR 290
- Williams v Staite [1979] Ch 291
- Yeo v Wilson, (unreported, LTL 27 July 1998, CH 1997 Y 4026)