Willmott v Barber (1880)

Land Law/ Property Law (Propriety Estoppel)
Fact
Barber was tenant of some land, purported to grant Willmott a lease that had breached of covenant. Barber also granted Willmott an option to purchase Barber’s lease. However, no written consent had been given by the landlord. Barber also refund to assign the lease to Willmott. Willmott then relied on estoppel to sue the landlord as he allowed Barber to spend money on the land and mistakenly believe that he would be able to exercise the option.


Held
The court considered that“five probanda” had to be established for the group of proprietary estoppel:
1.The claimant must have made a mistake as to his legal rights;
2.The claimant must have performed acts in reliance in this mistake;
3.The defendant must know of the existence of his own right (which is inconsistent with the right claimed by the claimant);
4.The defendant must know of the claimant's mistaken belief; and
5.The defendant must have encouraged the claimant in his act of reliance.

Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ([1982] QB 133)

Land Law/ Property Law (Propriety Estoppel)
Case related to option to renew.

Fact

The case of Taylor Fashions Ltd concerned two leases. Each lease contained an option to renew, but the option to renew the leases had not been registered as estate under the Land Charges Act 1925. Two tenants carried out substantial improvements at their property. However, the landlord had not been bound to renew. The tenant was seeking to establish estoppels.

Held

There was failure to satisfy the strict requirements under Willmott v Barber. The court encouraged new modern approach:

4 elements:  “When an assurance has been relied on, to the detriment of the claimant, in circumstances where it would be unconscionable to deny the claimant a remedy.”

Welcome to e-lawdatabases!

Welcome to e-lawdatabases! We outline the case summaries for Law student.

~~Great resources to help student understand of important concepts~~