Promissory Estoppel vs Proprietary Estoppel
Share
Promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel are both equitable doctrines designed to prevent unfair outcomes when one party relies on assurances or promises made by another. Despite their similarities in protecting people from unjust actions, they operate in distinct contexts and have different legal requirements. This article explores the distinctions between promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel, with reference to key case law.
Promissory Estoppel
Promissory estoppel is a doctrine that prevents a party from going back on a promise that was relied upon by another, even though there may be no legally binding contract in place. It applies in situations where a clear and unequivocal promise has been made, the promisee has relied on the promise to their detriment, and it would be inequitable for the promisor to go back on their word.
The principle was famously established in the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947]. In this case, a landlord agreed to reduce the rent during wartime because many of the flats in the building were unoccupied. After the war ended, the landlord sought to reclaim the full rent for the wartime period. Lord Denning held that, although there was no formal contract for the reduced rent, the landlord could not retrospectively claim the full rent because the tenant had relied on the reduction. This case illustrates the principle that promissory estoppel acts as a shield rather than a sword; it can be used to prevent the enforcement of strict legal rights but cannot create new rights or obligations.
Promissory estoppel generally applies in the context of ongoing contractual relationships. A key limitation is that it can only suspend the promisor’s rights temporarily, rather than extinguish them entirely. Once the circumstances that gave rise to the estoppel no longer exist, the promisor may resume their legal rights.
Proprietary Estoppel
Proprietary estoppel arises in relation to rights over property. It is used to prevent a landowner from denying another’s rights to land when that person has relied on assurances or promises regarding the property. The doctrine protects individuals who have acted to their detriment based on the belief that they would acquire some interest in land or property.
The classic requirements for proprietary estoppel were set out in Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd [1982], where it was established that the claimant must demonstrate an assurance or representation from the landowner, reliance on that assurance, and detriment suffered as a result. The courts have a broad discretion in determining how the estoppel should be remedied, which can include granting an interest in the property or compensation for the detriment suffered.
One landmark case in this area is Thorner v Major [2009], which involved a farmer who had worked on his cousin’s farm for many years without pay, believing that he would inherit the farm upon his cousin’s death. The cousin never explicitly promised the farm, but the court found that the farmer had reasonably inferred from the cousin’s conduct that the farm would be left to him. The court upheld the farmer’s claim based on proprietary estoppel, illustrating how the doctrine can protect individuals who rely on informal assurances regarding land.
Unlike promissory estoppel, proprietary estoppel can confer a new right in the form of an interest in property. It is more flexible and powerful in terms of remedies, as the court can order the transfer of property or another equitable remedy that reflects the claimant’s reliance and detriment.
In summary, both promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel play significant roles in preventing unfairness in legal disputes, but they operate in distinct legal domains. Promissory estoppel is more limited in scope, acting as a defence in contractual situations to prevent unjust outcomes. Proprietary estoppel is a more robust doctrine that can create new rights over property, offering greater protection to those who rely on assurances related to land.
Promissory Estoppel
Promissory estoppel is a doctrine that prevents a party from going back on a promise that was relied upon by another, even though there may be no legally binding contract in place. It applies in situations where a clear and unequivocal promise has been made, the promisee has relied on the promise to their detriment, and it would be inequitable for the promisor to go back on their word.
The principle was famously established in the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947]. In this case, a landlord agreed to reduce the rent during wartime because many of the flats in the building were unoccupied. After the war ended, the landlord sought to reclaim the full rent for the wartime period. Lord Denning held that, although there was no formal contract for the reduced rent, the landlord could not retrospectively claim the full rent because the tenant had relied on the reduction. This case illustrates the principle that promissory estoppel acts as a shield rather than a sword; it can be used to prevent the enforcement of strict legal rights but cannot create new rights or obligations.
Promissory estoppel generally applies in the context of ongoing contractual relationships. A key limitation is that it can only suspend the promisor’s rights temporarily, rather than extinguish them entirely. Once the circumstances that gave rise to the estoppel no longer exist, the promisor may resume their legal rights.
Proprietary Estoppel
Proprietary estoppel arises in relation to rights over property. It is used to prevent a landowner from denying another’s rights to land when that person has relied on assurances or promises regarding the property. The doctrine protects individuals who have acted to their detriment based on the belief that they would acquire some interest in land or property.
The classic requirements for proprietary estoppel were set out in Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd [1982], where it was established that the claimant must demonstrate an assurance or representation from the landowner, reliance on that assurance, and detriment suffered as a result. The courts have a broad discretion in determining how the estoppel should be remedied, which can include granting an interest in the property or compensation for the detriment suffered.
One landmark case in this area is Thorner v Major [2009], which involved a farmer who had worked on his cousin’s farm for many years without pay, believing that he would inherit the farm upon his cousin’s death. The cousin never explicitly promised the farm, but the court found that the farmer had reasonably inferred from the cousin’s conduct that the farm would be left to him. The court upheld the farmer’s claim based on proprietary estoppel, illustrating how the doctrine can protect individuals who rely on informal assurances regarding land.
Unlike promissory estoppel, proprietary estoppel can confer a new right in the form of an interest in property. It is more flexible and powerful in terms of remedies, as the court can order the transfer of property or another equitable remedy that reflects the claimant’s reliance and detriment.
In summary, both promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel play significant roles in preventing unfairness in legal disputes, but they operate in distinct legal domains. Promissory estoppel is more limited in scope, acting as a defence in contractual situations to prevent unjust outcomes. Proprietary estoppel is a more robust doctrine that can create new rights over property, offering greater protection to those who rely on assurances related to land.
