Crabb v Arun D C [1976] Ch 179
Plaintiff had access to a road at point A and wanted access at point B. He had a meeting with Defendant and they agreed that Plaintiff could have another access point “in principle”. Defendant then built a fence as agreed with Plaintiff and put in a gate at point B, so that Plaintiff now had his second access.
Plaintiff later assigned his rights to access point A to a 3rd party so that his only access to the road was at the gate at point B. Defendant then replaced the gate with a fence, locking Plaintiff in.
CA allowed Plaintiff’s claim.
Lord Denning
Estoppel can give a cause of action concerning rights or interests over land and is founded in equity. This is “proprietary estoppel”.
In this case Defendant lead Plaintiff to believe that he would have a right to access the road at point by putting in a gate, etc. and Plaintiff relied on this, so that it would be inequitable to allow Defendant to go back on his implied granting of the right.
Lawton LJ
Found a firm agreement between Defendant and Plaintiff and stated that Defendant had given an undertaking and therefore Plaintiff had a right top access at point B.
Estoppel is to “mitigate the rigours of strict law”.
Lord Scarman
The courts cannot find an equity established unless it would be “unconscionable and unjust” to allow a strict enforcement of legal rights.
He also said that he didn’t find the proprietary-promissory distinction helpful.
The danger with this is that, unlike Denning, he has set no restrictions on which forms of estoppel could be used to found a cause of action.
RELATED CASES
Similar cases
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.