Proprietary Estoppel – Page 4

Proprietary estoppel: Reap what you sow?

In the second part of two articles Amanda Noyce continues to review recent proprietary estoppel cases, as well as outlining the lessons to be learned ‘Few High Court judges would want to divert openly from the case of Thorner, but my thesis is that the later cases have refined the law and an attempt needs …

Continue reading "Proprietary estoppel: Reap what you sow?"

This post is only available to members.

Proprietary estoppel: Where there’s muck there’s brass

In the first part of two articles Amanda Noyce discusses a series of recent proprietary estoppel claims concerning farms ‘There are six recently reported cases involving the concept of proprietary estoppel, where the principles emphasised (although not established) in Thorner have been honed.’ Proprietary estoppel appeals to those of us involved in Chancery work – …

Continue reading "Proprietary estoppel: Where there’s muck there’s brass"

This post is only available to members.

Proprietary estoppel: A principled approach to the facts

Gordon Nurse examines a case that indicates how proprietary estoppel cases are currently treated at trial ‘It is essential from the outset to give careful consideration to the facts that must be established, especially if a party is to be entitled to rely on proprietary estoppel.’ Smyth-Tyrrell v Bowden [2018] is an example of the …

Continue reading "Proprietary estoppel: A principled approach to the facts"

This post is only available to members.

The deceased was a self-made man who had operated a farming business and a haulage company in partnership with his wife (the third defendant) and his son (the claimant). Over the course of his life, he purchased a number of parcels of agricultural land in Dorset. In 2007 he gave two of these parcels to one of his daughters (the first defendant). In 2009 the partnership dissolved, and the deceased transferred one of the parcels to himself and the third defendant to hold jointly. At the same time the claimant was given one of the parcels and the haulage business.

The deceased died i...

Matchmove v Dowding & anr [2016] EWCA Civ 1233

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2017 #167

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the enforceability of an agreement to sell a piece of land through proprietary estoppel and constructive trust notwithstanding the absence of a written contract.

F, a property developer, was the moving spirit of the appellant (M). In 2002, F began negotiations with G for the purchase of a plot of land (the land) and a meadow (the meadow). F intended to divide the land into two plots. Plot 1 and plot 2 would be sold separately. G did not want to sell until he had planning permission, which was granted in 2003.

By late 2003, a ‘comm...

Proprietary Estoppel: Down on the farm

Rebecca Cattermole highlights the current position on the doctrine of estoppel in the context of recent case law ‘It was a useful working hypothesis to take a sliding scale by which the clearer the expectation, the greater the detriment.’ The case of Moore v Moore [2016] is the most recent illustration of the treatment of …

Continue reading "Proprietary Estoppel: Down on the farm"

This post is only available to members.

Davies & anr v Davies [2013] EWHC 2623 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2016 #164

Tegwyn and Mary Davies purchased a dairy farm known as Henllan in West Wales in 1972. It comprised a farmhouse, an attached cottage, outbuildings, and 182 acres of land. It was farmed with a nearby farm also owned by them known as Caeremlyn which they had purchased in 1961 (together ‘the farm’). The respondent, Eirian was one of their three daughters. By 1989, she was the only child left at the farm. She had a passionate interest in pedigree milking cows which was the main business of the farm, and it was by this stage clear that she was the only possible candidate to take it over. In th...

Gorbunova v Estate of Boris Berezovsky & ors [2016] EWHC 1829 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2016 #164

B had been involved in litigation against A and the AP family (the litigation) from which he potentially stood to recover large sums of money. The claimant, G, was B’s long-term partner. In March 2012 the litigation deed was drawn up to reflect agreement between B and G regarding G’s entitlement to B’s assets (including the litigation). B subsequently lost his case against A and entered into settlement discussions with the AP family. The litigation agreement was a further document signed in September 2012 to reflect an agreement between B and G concerning her entitlement to any sums from...