• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

'Gillett v. Holt is a watershed in the law of estoppel. The need to

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

'Gillett v. Holt is a watershed in the law of estoppel. The need to "look at the case in the round" means that many more cases will be successful.' The doctrine of proprietary estoppel is an equitable intervention in cases where the enforcement of legal rights is considered by the courts to be unconscionably unfair. The essence of the doctrine arises, as defined by Snell: '[when] one (A) is encouraged to act to his detriment by the representations or encouragement of another (O) so that it would be unconscionable for O to insist on his strict legal rights.' (McGhee, 2000, p.637) In the absence of a written agreement, estoppel acts as an evidentiary tool with which the courts can help ensure fair interaction in property dealings. Proprietary estoppel is a method by which informal arrangements are recognized as being capable of creating proprietary interests. Given that it lies within the domain of equity, the case law indicates a great flexibility in its application, both in the substantive requirements of proof demanded by the courts and in the manner in which the courts will satisfy the equity. It is the first of these aspects of the doctrine that I will examine in this essay. I will look at the shift in the evidentiary requirements and what a representation (or an assurance of rights), a reliance (a change of position on the basis of that assurance) ...read more.

Middle

Equitable remedies are always subject to a compromise between the certainty craved in law and a level of flexibility that allows the courts of equity to respond to the injustices they were designed to rectify. Oliver J didn't intend a proliferation of cases or even an artificially heightened rate of success, but rather to set a more flexible and equitable method of deciding the validity of cases. An examination of the judicial development of proprietary estoppel suggests that Gillett v Holt is merely a continuation of a 20th century trend, especially in the last 20 years, towards broadening its remit whilst giving greater emphasis to unconscionability as the basis for successful claims. In Jones v Watkins (unreported)7, Slade LJ's judgment contains some important observations about the possibility of proprietary estoppel arising from an equivocal representation: 'The equivocal nature of the promises found by the judge is clearly one relevant factor when considering whether or not it would be unconscionable to permit the administrators to rely on their strict legal title'. Walker (in Gillett v Holt) cites Inwards v Baker to repudiate the argument that there must be a 'mutual agreement' as to the content and method by which an interest may be granted, or any sense of a bargain between the parties (see Yaxley v Gotts (2000)8 per Robert Walker). ...read more.

Conclusion

What must first be acknowledged is that estoppel remains a drastic course of action for a court to allow and the natural restraints of judicial conservatism ensure that the formality of property law will always be paramount. The emphasis upon unconscionability has allowed the courts to conduct a broader examination of the facts without being restrained by the necessary satisfaction of inflexible criteria. Clearly the subjugation of the three criteria to the determination of unconscionability which one can only really infer from them presents a logical difficulty. They are however necessary without being sufficient, and the fluidity of unconscionability as a term allows case by case judgements with a broad discretion. Yet the broadness of the examination by no means implies that the standards of evidence required by the courts have dropped, only that more types of evidence might have relevance. Clearly to reduce the evidentiary standard in regard to the quality required to establish facts would invite more claims and with less to prove, more successful claims. Neither Oliver J in Taylor Fashions nor Walker J in Gillett v Holt give any rise to believe that the bar has been dropped in this regard. All that has been done is to mirror the myriad informal arrangements that may give rise to proprietary estoppel with an appropriately flexible approach; to find a balance between the need for certainty that even equity acknowledges and the discretion that it clearly demands. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Law of Evidence - R v Kearley

    5 star(s)

    of words spoken by a person not called as a witness which are said to assert a relevant fact by necessary implication are inadmissible as hearsay. Essentially, the majority held that implied assertions are inadmissible as hearsay, applying the cases of Wright v Doe D Tatham9, Myers v DPP10 and R v Blastland11.

  2. prisoners rights

    with no real effort being made to rise above the very minimum required for the meanest survival. Where prisoners worked, their remuneration was often a pittance, offering scant hope of savings being generated for future rehabilitation in society. By and large, the positive experiences were the exceptions rather than the

  1. Criminal Law (Offences against the person) - revision notes

    This could be for an offence where the MR would normally carry a maximum of 6 months 2. The offence does refer to unlawful acts This raises the question of whether an offence can be committed by an omission. There is no absolute rule on this issue but it is generally accepted that unlawful omissions are inadequate for this offence.

  2. Metafiktion er betegnelsen for den type af sknlitteratur, film og drama, som gr opmrksom ...

    - opdigtet modtager f�rst Elnazred der fort�ller til Mira Jama der s� fort�ller til den ukendte fort�ller der s� fort�ller til os. Intertekstualitet spiller ligeledes en stor rolle hos Karen Blixen og i n�sten alle hendes historier bliver der brugt intertekster.

  1. In order to analyse the differing approaches, concerning formalities and incompletely constituted trusts within ...

    The first is by making an outright transfer. Depending on the type of property, the settlor can transfer his absolute interest, legal and equitable. Secondly, a settlor may declare himself a trustee for the benefit of someone else. All that is necessary is a declaration of trust in favour of beneficiary.

  2. Common Law and Equity

    incorrect which meant that a person would lose their case if their writs were written wrongly, this lead to injustice in some of the cases. 3.3 Problem 3 The final problem of Common Law was related to 'remedy' or 'solution'.

  1. Explain the need for discipline in at least two public services. Analyse the role ...

    to keep the person in for further question if have clear evidence that may affect the case. Police activities are also controlled by law PCA (Police Complaints Authority) which was set up to ensure that the police also abide by the regulation PCA deals with complaints and discipline.

  2. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    98 (b)] 3. When the party charged could not suffer damage for want of notice, e.g., if at the time when the instrument is drawn there were no funds belonging to the drawer in the hands of the drawee, the drawer suffers no damage, and is not entitled to notice of dishonor.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work