Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
20 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Ramsden v Dyson |
Classic case establishing the two limbs of proprietary estoppel - mistake and expectation |
|
|
McMahon v Kerry Co Co |
Council mistakenly built houses on land belonging to plaintiff - plaintiffs estopped from claiming houses despite protests but were entitled to monetary compensation |
|
|
Smyth v Halpin |
Son encouraged to build extension on father's house by representation he would have it after father's death |
|
|
Carter v Ross |
Defendant told plaintiff he would leave him his farm if he came to live in Ireland, gave him a site - "minimal detriment" and "vague promise" so was not estoppel |
|
|
CF v JDF |
Matrimonial property dispute - father never made any representation that son had an interest in the land |
|
|
Thorner v Major |
Indirect representations that plaintiff would obtain farm following work without pay. Retreat from Cobbe |
|
|
Naylor v Maher |
Farm work over extended period minimal remuneration based on representation of inheritance - a "meeting of minds." Claim to farm was successful and was also entitled to gift under will (on appeal) |
|
|
Greasley v Cooke |
Former maid acted to her detriment by caring for family without pay and foregoing other employment opportunities |
|
|
Re JR (A Ward of Court) |
Man represented to woman she would be entitled to stay in the house for the rest of her life - Costello J was satisfied that the fact that the woman left some accommodation was sufficient detriment (promissory estoppel) |
|
|
Christopher McGuinness v Francis McGuinness |
Detriment must be proved as a matter of probability |
|
|
Jennings v Rice |
Representations to gardener that she would "see him right" - CA held that although expectation was prima facie the remedy, but if this was uncertain, disproportionate or extravagant the court had a wide discretion to make a different award |
|
|
Willmott v Barber |
Fry J set out the 5 probanda which purported to restrict the applicability of the doctrine to cases involving a mistake on the part of the plaintoff |
|
|
Cullen v Cullen |
While father was in away, son put portable home on his land - proprietary estoppel rejected as son was not mistaken as to his rights |
|
|
Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustess Co Ltd |
Oliver J rejected application of rigid test - should be based on a general principle of unconscionability in the circumstances |
|
|
Yeoman's Row Management Ltd v Cobbe |
Controversial House of Lords decision agreement between property developer and owner binding in honour to pursue planning permission in return for sale at fixed price - no proprietary estoppel because plaintiff did not mistakenly believe he was entitled to an interest |
|
|
An Cumman Peile Boitheimeach Teoranta v Albion Properties Ltd |
Agreement between football club and developer to purchase part of grounds - advances given. Developer successful in a claim of proprietary estoppel |
|
|
Central London Property Trust v High Trees House |
Denning J developed promissory estoppel |
|
|
The Barge Inn v Quinn Hospitality Ireland Operations |
Landlord told tenants he would reduce rent during downturn - tenants relied to their detriment and landlord was subsequently estopped from insisting on full rent |
|
|
Walton Stores v Maher |
Australian decision proposes that division between different forms of estoppel should be dissolved - broad principle of unconscionability |
|
|
Liberty Asset Management v Gannon |
Plaintiff intended to take lease from defendant and defendant would then take assignment of lease - Laffoy J stated she would have been willing to use estoppel to force defendant to take assignment |
