Proprietary Estopple and RT / CT

Q1) Elizabeth was the owner of Lower Loxley Hall (the Hall), a 17th century country house set in
substantial grounds. She lived at the Hall and used it as a conference venue and adventure
park. Elizabeth had two children, Lilly and Freddie. In 2014 Lilly left home after graduating from
university to start her career as a travel writer in Africa. In 2017, just as Freddie was completing
his training to be a vet, Elizabeth was diagnosed with a serious medical condition. Elizabeth’s
doctor advised her to reduce her workload and take more rest. She therefore telephoned
Freddie to say that he should return to live at the Hall and take more responsibility for running
its business activities. Initially, Freddie was hesitant to abandon his plans to practice as a vet, so
Elizabeth sent him a text message. It read: “You know that if you come home now I’ll make it
worth your while. I will make sure you are wellprovided for financially.” Not wanting to make
his mother’s health worse, Freddie agreed to return home From 2017, as Elizabeth’s health
gradually deteriorated, Freddie increasingly took on more of the responsibility for managing the
business activities at the Hall. Elizabeth paid him an annual salary of £18,000 and provided rent-
free accommodation at the Hall. Freddie sometimes contributed to the household expenditure.
In 2019 Elizabeth told Freddie that she planned to make her will, under which he would inherit
the Hall (valued at £2.5 million) and Lilly would receive all her other property (worth in the
region of £1.25 million). Although Elizabeth’s solicitor drafted a will in those terms, it was never
executed because Elizabeth suddenly collapsed and was rushed to hospital. In 2020, Freddie’s
uncle, Alistair, offered him a job as a junior vet with a salary of £40,000. He told Elizabeth, who
replied: “You know what the Hall means to me. It has been in our family for generations, and
believe me it is going to be your future.” Reluctantly, Freddie told Alistair he could not accept
the job offer. Elizabeth died in August 2022. A month before she had made a will by which she
divided all of her property equally between her two children. Advise Freddie as to what, if any,
remedy that may be available if he makes a claim in proprietary estoppel.
Summary of facts – primary issue- l and F e operates the hall both childred elft for passion –
elizabeith not well – leave his training F – well provided for – 40k milrahe they but E said hall is
ur future – will was drafted for F – E died and will was equally divided property among all
Proprietary right on hall and business
As per general rule of formalities, GENERAL RULE, proprietary right important and expensive –
proprietary right only granted if in writing - assurances in not in writing which were oral –
therefore invalid and formalities law strict as it prevents fraud, increases certainty and gives
administrative conveniance to courts.
Proprietary estoppel can be raised intro law of form strict and the trust is seen
PE can be used tp create proprietary rights which were oral
Law for assurance wide domestic context can be express can be implied and can be by silence
In commercial context strict – gentleman promise cook case – allow
1)In our case domestic assurance is seen when f went out she called him back and told she is
sick but it is not clear assurance this meant f will be given money for living w E
2)will was drafted but not executed but
3) later statement meant that F will be the FUTURE of the hall and
DETRIMENT
Opportunity cost – vet – worked on less money
Physical detriment –
Career chordia
Monetary and non monetary
BAD FAITH
She promised by died other dauther never came to help or support and F left everything for her
If F oes not get hall it would be unfair for F
Final issue REMEDIES
For PE courts have wide discretion they can give any remedy they want but then there was a
case of jennings v rice -minimum equity jitna detriment utna milega – SLEDMORE – GUKKIT holt
In our case F worked for till 2017 till 2022 – 5 years – salary but v less – offer mili 2020 mein-
40000 – another lucrative profession to stay here – rent free rehta – 2.5 +1.5 = 3.75 / 2 = 1.86
this will be given -2.5 = .65 m
Business continuity F will do it

Q2) In 2008 Brian, a psychologist, started a relationship with Clare, who was studying at college
to become a social worker. A year later, they decided to live together. Brian found a house for
them to live in. As Clare was still training, they decided that Brian would become sole
registered proprietor of the house . He also paid the deposit and granted the
Community Bank a mortgage over the house . When Clare qualified as a social worker
in 2010, she immediately found a job with her local council’s social services
department specialising in caring for children’s welfare. The couple then opened a
joint bank account into which they each paid their monthly earnings, and from
which they paid the monthly mortgage payments to the Community Bank and
all the other household and living expenses. In May 2014 Clare gave birth to
Thomas. At Brian’s suggestion, she turned down the offer of promotion at work
before resigning from her job at the council to take care of the family . They
immediately closed their joint bank account, after which Brian met the monthly
mortgage payments and other household bills from his own bank account . In
2015 Brian and Clare had a second child, Megan. By this time, Brian began to work
long hours, achieved greater financial security and gained celebrity status as the
resident psychologist on the TV programme Dating Stars. His contract regularly
took him abroad for filming. As a result, Clare spent more time looking after
Thomas and Megan, and carrying out minor repairs, and decorating
the house. In 2017 Brian used an advance he received from a book publishing
deal to discharge the mortgage with the Community Bank . Later that year, Clare
inherited £20,000 from her aunt. She used the money to build a playroom in the
garden for the children, which she designed and fitted out herself . Last week,
Brian told Clare that he was leaving her and the children to set up home with
Nahlia, the director of Dating Stars. He therefore wants them to sell the house. Advise
Clare about what, if any, interest she may be able to claim in the house by way of trust law
principles.
RT C T
Summary of facts
Brian legal owner – trust - equitable owner b and c both
General law – law of formalities – when it is writing – strict requirement defined by statute – no
writing
Informally acquires a right under the trust law principle i.e., by proving either rt or ct
RT define – if any person contributes to the purchase price automatically proves RT – EQ jitna
paisa utna share – in our case - husband contributed more and rt is narrow hence her
contributions will not be concluded
CT – a ct can be made by operation of law in family owned context If paties can prove common
intention of ownership expressly prove or impliedly i.e., inferred whats mine is yours would also
conclude express – in our case – INFERED HISTORY NARROW LLOYD V ROSSET -common
intention – contrivution to purchase price or mortgage payments – in family context no focus
on expenses and finally in oxley then stack v downden jones v kernot (FAMILY ASET APPROACH
BALNCE SHEET APPROACH CONFUSION PHELGAYI MARKET MEIN were cases which were
quantification cases coowonership home without trust deed
Trust is created equity follows law biwi zyada contribution 2 jt and ghar bika tou 50 50 but
phadda yeh tha kay 50 50 na ho zyada ho rt ct can be used in two ways
1) Owner ho naib anna chahta ho
2) Want bigger share if alrdy have
In our case, larki ne mortgage pe kiya household Naukri chori opportunity cost bachay
sambhalay sub cheezo ki paisay mehnat k alag paisay ghar sambhalnay k alag paisay 20,000
poun invested into playroom everything will be considered - common intention of ownership –
DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE -non monetary defined above – and non mentary
Moral fraud – case to case – man elaving female is not moral fraud zaati decision – if saying
ghar becho then moral fraud because she is 50-50 w him and injustice and will be prove in
courts and a constructive trust will be created by opof law and brian will be the legal owner and
he will hold it in such shares whichthe courts consider fair based on all circumstance of case CT
WILL CONSIDER EVERYTHING NOT SPECUFIC THINGS MORTGAGE CHORDIA SUB CHORDIA.
Zyadti itni ki tou kyun dain –
Sale rukwa bhi sakti werna paisay bhi nikalwa sakti hai

Summary of facts
RT
CT
Ct create and fair shares would be divided
Q3) ‘Broadly speaking the modern case law has resulted in the satisfactory delineation of
proprietary estoppel’s central components – assurance, reliance, detriment and
unconscionability. There remains, however, room for greater precision and clarity in these and
other aspects of the way in which the doctrine operates.’ Discuss.
Aj k case law ne subkuch define kerdia but both zyada clarity ki zarurat hai
Pehla para marks milte uske basis pe
In essay opinion statement shall be v strong
We agree that the modern case law for PE has tried to boradly defined components of A C R D
U we feel sometimes uncertainty is also beneficial as pE is creature of equity which is there to
provide justice. Flexibiklity is also in commercial context and not domestic can be developed by
case law and judges do it deliberately in scenarios where law can vary differently
In our essay, we will first discuss the law of formalities and why PE was introduced then the
modern definitions of the components and how uncertainty is beneficial and finaly we shall
discuss the flexibility and uncertainty left by the courts in determining remedies.
Pe introduced – softer 4 components – indefined –
assurance - uncertainty
Reliance factually
detriment factually
bad faith case to case
remedies – was jackpot first – lower courts – higher courts – jenning v rice – min equity
necessary – misuse law – sledmore – gillete – jitna nuksan utna milega quantified benefit

Properietary