6. Proprietary Estoppel

KEY DEFINITION For in X to be able to establish a proprietary estoppel it must be shown that: - the owner of the property assured or promised X an interest in the property; - X relied on the promise to her detriment; - it would be unconscionable not to give X an interest in the property.

Reading: The following case is a classic example of how a proprietary estoppel can arise:

Wayling m. Jones [1995] 1 FLR 1029 Concerning: Proprietary estoppel Facts Mr Jones and Mr Wayling formed a relationship. Jones told Wayling that if they moved in together and Wayling helped him run his hotel, then he would leave Wayling the hotel in his will. Mr Wayling moved in and did much work on the hotel over many years, receiving mere pocket money. When Jones died it was found that he had left the hotel in his will to someone else. Wayling claimed the property under a proprietary estoppel. Legal principle Wayling could claim the property under a propriety estoppel. He had been promised that the hotel would be his and had relied on that promise to his detriment in working for minimal pay. Although he had acted partly in response to the promise and partly out of love, that did not prevent an estoppel from arising.

Seminar 2

What you need to know:

□The difference in legal treatment of cohabitees and married couples or civil partners

□ When the law treats unmarried couples and married couples in the same way

□ The law on resulting trusts, constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel

□Proposed reforms of the law on cohabitation.

Further thinking

A common essay questions asks you to consider whether the law on cohabitation needs reform? Do you think there is a case for saying that unmarried couples should be treated just like married couples for all matters in relation to children, but differently in relation to financial matters between themselves? Is it possible to make this distinction: does not a parent's financial position affect a child? Do children have a right not to be treated in any way differently based on the marital status of their parents? How would the law be different if we took this principle seriously?

Problem question

Alan owns a large detached house, which is registered in his name alone. He meets Stove at a night club and invites him to stay in his house. Over breakfast the next morning Alan says to Steve: 'I love you and everything I have is yours'. Steve moves in and they live as a couple. Alan tells Steve that if he does domestic chores about the house, he will make sure that he does not go unrewarded. Steve undertakes the housework and pays for several bills. Once he gives Alan some cash as a gift because Alan says he is so hard up that he is struggling to meet the mortgage payments. Steve does some decoration and puts up a shed in the garden. Three years later over supper Alan proposes to Steve and says 'I want you to share ownership of the house'. Steve says, 'But I thought the house was ours already'. This leads to a huge row and Alan throws Steve out of the house, saying their relationship is over. Does Steve have any property interest in the house?