Weekly review: 5th – 9th November 2012

Proprietary estoppel: detrimental reliance: relief: proportionality: equity arising is proprietary

It is not enough to rely on an assurance; proprietary estoppel demands detrimental reliance. Where the claimant has derived benefit from the reliance some sort of balancing exercise may be necessary. Even where the assurance was clear, proportionality may mean that full effect is not given to it. A proprietary estoppel claim is proprietary and capable of binding successors in title (but this demands some extra factor making it unconscionable to ignore the claimant’s expectations (Henry v Henry).

Proprietary estoppel: relief: bargain cases: defendant’s ignorance of the act of reliance

Where the right promised is clear then the only adequate response will usually be to give effect to it. It is enough that the promise intended to be taken seriously (or reasonably so understood). The person giving the assurance does not need to know about the act or acts performed in reliance (Joyce v Epsom and Ewell BC).

Presumed resulting trust: presumption of advancement

A person cannot plead the existence of an unlawful purpose to rebut the presumption of advancement unless that person has not, in fact, pursued the unlawful purpose even though the voluntary transfer was made in readiness for the unlawful scheme  (Tribe v Tribe).

Presumed resulting trust

A person can seek to take advantage of the presumption of a resulting trust even where title was out into another’s name for an unlawful purpose provided there is no need to plead the unlawful action (Tinsley v Milligan).


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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: