Crabb v Arun District Council [1975]
Share
Crabb v Arun District Council [1975] EWCA Civ 7 is a significant case in English land law, focusing on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. Lord Denning established a crucial principle regarding agreements related to the acquisition of rights over land. He affirmed that, uniquely in land matters, there is no requirement for both parties to provide consideration for the enforcement of the agreement.
In 1965, Mr Victor Crabb purchased 2 acres of land in Pagham, near Bognor Regis. The adjacent 3.5 acres owned by Arun District Council was separated by Mill Park Road. Mr Crabb believed he had access points at A and B, where A was formalised through easement, and B was informally allowed by the Council. Arun District Council later installed gates at both points. Despite assurances, Crabb sold part of his land assuming continued access at both points. When Arun District Council demanded £3,000 for access at point B, Crabb sued, claiming he had been assured the gates would remain open.
The trial judge found no formal assurance and deemed any potential agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration. Crabb appealed, and Lord Denning held that proprietary estoppel could enforce the promise. He asserted that equity, as a flexible remedy, could arise in the absence of a binding contract, especially in land-related matters. The judge found Arun District Council's conduct led Crabb to believe in the promised access at point B, creating an equity in his favour.
Lord Denning explained that proprietary estoppel, a species of estoppel, gives rise to a cause of action. It operates to limit or extinguish a true owner's title to property based on conduct or promises. The court protects new rights and interests created by estoppel, acknowledging its basis in equity to mitigate strict legal rights.
The court analysed the equity established, its extent, and the relief required. Scarman LJ emphasised the court's duty to determine the equitable right's conditions, suggesting an easement or license on agreed terms. However, delays and highhanded actions by Arun District Council influenced the judgment. The court concluded that Crabb, as the landowner, should have free access at point B without paying compensation, considering the loss caused by the council's actions.
In summary, this case is a landmark case affirming the application of proprietary estoppel in land-related matters and emphasising the flexible nature of equity to achieve justice in specific circumstances. The court granted Crabb the right of access at point B without compensation due to the council's conduct and the loss suffered.
In 1965, Mr Victor Crabb purchased 2 acres of land in Pagham, near Bognor Regis. The adjacent 3.5 acres owned by Arun District Council was separated by Mill Park Road. Mr Crabb believed he had access points at A and B, where A was formalised through easement, and B was informally allowed by the Council. Arun District Council later installed gates at both points. Despite assurances, Crabb sold part of his land assuming continued access at both points. When Arun District Council demanded £3,000 for access at point B, Crabb sued, claiming he had been assured the gates would remain open.
The trial judge found no formal assurance and deemed any potential agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration. Crabb appealed, and Lord Denning held that proprietary estoppel could enforce the promise. He asserted that equity, as a flexible remedy, could arise in the absence of a binding contract, especially in land-related matters. The judge found Arun District Council's conduct led Crabb to believe in the promised access at point B, creating an equity in his favour.
Lord Denning explained that proprietary estoppel, a species of estoppel, gives rise to a cause of action. It operates to limit or extinguish a true owner's title to property based on conduct or promises. The court protects new rights and interests created by estoppel, acknowledging its basis in equity to mitigate strict legal rights.
The court analysed the equity established, its extent, and the relief required. Scarman LJ emphasised the court's duty to determine the equitable right's conditions, suggesting an easement or license on agreed terms. However, delays and highhanded actions by Arun District Council influenced the judgment. The court concluded that Crabb, as the landowner, should have free access at point B without paying compensation, considering the loss caused by the council's actions.
In summary, this case is a landmark case affirming the application of proprietary estoppel in land-related matters and emphasising the flexible nature of equity to achieve justice in specific circumstances. The court granted Crabb the right of access at point B without compensation due to the council's conduct and the loss suffered.
