Proprietary Estoppel Analysis

Proprietary estoppel is a powerful equitable legal concept; used as both a ‘sword’ and a ‘shield’ which distinguishes it from other equitable concepts. To have a successful claim within proprietary estoppel three basic requirements must be fulfilled, as quoted by Ying Khai Liew:

“B induces A to assume, through a promise, assurance or acquiescence in A’s mistaken belief, that B will cede an interest in property he or she owns to A, and A detrimentally relies on the assumption”

This essay will look at the three requirements within a proprietary estoppel claim in great depth, noting how unconscionability plays a strong role and perhaps arguably exhibits the fourth element of the requirements for a successful claim.

The requirements for the
There are a number of cases that display the requirement of reliance. In Thorner v Major reliance could be shown in the fact that D continued to work on P’s farm for no pay as he relied on the assurance he would one day have the title to the farm. Similarly within Wayling v Jones it was held that due to W managing the hotels for ‘pocket money’ there was reliance on J’s promise, as stated per Balcombe LJ: “Managing the Royal Hotel, Barmouth, for what was at best little more than pocket money… was conduct from which his reliance on the deceased's clear promises could be inferred”

However reliance as its own specific requirement is not always the route that is taken within proprietary estoppel, as reliance and detriment are often very closely linked. This concept is drawn from Gillet v Holt by Robert Walker
Thus as long as the three components of the doctrine are present a successful claim can be made within proprietary estoppel;

“Unconscionability of conduct may well lead to a remedy but, in my opinion, proprietary estoppel cannot be the route to it unless the ingredients for a proprietary estoppel are present”

Therefore it can be viewed that unconscionability underlies as a principle of proprietary estoppel and is a relevant factor to take into consideration, as Lord Scott argued, it is not powerful enough as a concept to be the ‘fourth requirement’.

Overall there are three explicit foundations that constitute proprietary estoppel; assurance, reliance and detriment as stated in Thorner v Major and many subsequent cases, with all three needing to be in attendance for a proprietary estoppel claim. Moreover many argue that unconscionability sets a fourth requirement for a claim as stated in Gillet v Holt unconscionability is always found in a repudiation of an assurance. However it can be shown that although this concept may underline the doctrine, it is not in all cases powerful enough to constitute its own