Land Law Lecture 5
Adverse Possession and Freehold Title
Formative Coursework
- Use widgets?
- Briefing note
o Structured and reason towards the recipient
o Advising the client
- Can use or not use headings
- Do not overthink the format – focus on the content
Relationship between Proprietary Estoppel and Formality Requirement under 1989 Act
- P.E has emerged in the decided cases in context of Section 2 whenever it is clear that
the parties didn’t have a written contract that satisfied Section 2
- So if entered orally, there is no valid section 2 contract
- Essential features of P.E under Lord Walker Thorner v. Major 2009
o Representation of property rights made to claimant by land owner
o Reliance by claimant
o Detriment suffered by claimant
- If claim succeeds, nature of remedy awarded is discretionary – wide range of
outcomes possible
o Not necessarily awarding interest in land
Contracts and Proprietary Estoppel
- Section 2 said there is a formality requirement
- But Section 2 does not mention P.E
- Gives other forms equitable ideas that are similar to P.E but not identical like
constructive trust
- Therefore, have to think about how judges face that question
- Controversial
- Yes, PE can be used if it satisfies the requirements
Yaxley v. Gotts 2000
- Different approaches
- If Yaxley renovated the land, Gotts will give him the lease
- There is a promise that is relied on to the claimant’s detriment
- Walker
o Can use P.E if all the facts can be plead to the constructive trust
o Playing on the overlap
o So if can constructive trust, then can PE
- Beldam and Clarke
o Recognises PE might be independent exception from constructive trust to
need for a Section 2 written contract
- Constructive trust and PE difference
o PE
all you have to show is a promise that a lease is promise
Unilateral
Allow more leeway
Adverse Possession and Freehold Title
Formative Coursework
- Use widgets?
- Briefing note
o Structured and reason towards the recipient
o Advising the client
- Can use or not use headings
- Do not overthink the format – focus on the content
Relationship between Proprietary Estoppel and Formality Requirement under 1989 Act
- P.E has emerged in the decided cases in context of Section 2 whenever it is clear that
the parties didn’t have a written contract that satisfied Section 2
- So if entered orally, there is no valid section 2 contract
- Essential features of P.E under Lord Walker Thorner v. Major 2009
o Representation of property rights made to claimant by land owner
o Reliance by claimant
o Detriment suffered by claimant
- If claim succeeds, nature of remedy awarded is discretionary – wide range of
outcomes possible
o Not necessarily awarding interest in land
Contracts and Proprietary Estoppel
- Section 2 said there is a formality requirement
- But Section 2 does not mention P.E
- Gives other forms equitable ideas that are similar to P.E but not identical like
constructive trust
- Therefore, have to think about how judges face that question
- Controversial
- Yes, PE can be used if it satisfies the requirements
Yaxley v. Gotts 2000
- Different approaches
- If Yaxley renovated the land, Gotts will give him the lease
- There is a promise that is relied on to the claimant’s detriment
- Walker
o Can use P.E if all the facts can be plead to the constructive trust
o Playing on the overlap
o So if can constructive trust, then can PE
- Beldam and Clarke
o Recognises PE might be independent exception from constructive trust to
need for a Section 2 written contract
- Constructive trust and PE difference
o PE
all you have to show is a promise that a lease is promise
Unilateral
Allow more leeway
