No relief where the detrimental reliance was unlawful

In Chalmers v Pardoe ([1963] 1 WLR 677, PC) the Privy Council considered an appeal from the Fijian Court of Appeal. P had agreed to allow C to erect buildings on land of which P was the tenant. The consent of the Native Land Trust Board was needed for this building work but it had not been obtained. The Board waived its right to object in return for a higher rent. It could not agree to the grant of a sub-lease to C until P made an application. P and C fell out and P refused to apply. C invoked the principle of proprietary estoppel and sought an equitable charge or lien (in respect of the cost of the building works) by way of relief. C failed because the works had been unlawful and so there could be no equitable relief.

Advertisements

One Response to “No relief where the detrimental reliance was unlawful”

  1. phil Says:

    thank you. concisely helpful!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: