Kinane v Mackie-Conteh: CA 1 Feb 2005

The court upheld a declaration by the trial judge that the claimant was an equitable chargee under an equitable charge of the defendant’s property, notwithstanding that the claimant relied on an oral agreement by the defendant for the grant to the claimant of a charge on the property and which therefore did not comply with s.2(1) of the 1989 Act. The claimant had established a proprietary estoppel which overlapped with a constructive trust, the same facts were capable of giving rise to both a proprietary estoppel and a constructive trust within s. 2(5) of the 1989 Act. Arden LJ: A claimant seeking to rely on proprietary estoppel as a basis for disapplying s. 2(1) of the 1989 Act is not prevented from relying in support of the case on the agreement which s.2(1) would otherwise render invalid. In order to succeed in establishing the estoppel it is not sufficient merely for the claimant to put the agreement in evidence. The essential requirements of the estoppel have to be satisfied in every case: in Kinane the claimant had to prove, and did prove, that the defendant encouraged the claimant to believe that the security agreement was valid and binding: ‘the cause of action in proprietary estoppel is thus not founded on the unenforceable agreement but upon the defendant’s conduct which, when viewed in all relevant respects, is unconscionable.’
Arden, Neuberger, Thorpe LJJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 45
Bailii
Law of Property Act 1925 53(1), Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 291)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedIn re Vandervell’s Trusts (No 1); Vandervell Trustees Limited v White and Others HL 15-Jul-1970
Practice – Parties – Joinder – Proceedings between subjects raising issues material to income tax – Joinder of Commissioners of Inland Revenue – Income Tax Act 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. 6 and 1 Eliz. 2, c.10), ss. 52 and 64 ; Income Tax Management Act . .

Cited by:
CitedCobbe v Yeomans Row Management Ltd and Others ChD 25-Feb-2005
Principles for Proprietary Estoppel
A developer claimed to have agreed that upon obtaining necessary planning permissions for land belonging to the respondents, he would purchase the land at a price reflecting its new value. The defendant denied that any legally enforceable agreement . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 January 2021; Ref: scu.222612