The defendant had claimed an agricultural tenancy under a proprietary estoppel. His claim succeeded at first instance. The judge found it had been clearly understood that he would continue to farm the land on the basis of an agricultural tenancy, as agreed in principle, and that he bought stock and farm implements on that basis. However, no terms were agreed and no rent was agreed either. The claimant appealed.
Held: Crabb v. Arun DC was described as the ‘leading modern authority’. The appellant’s upheld submission was: ‘since the measure of expectation or belief is the maximum extent of the equity, it is incumbent on Mr William, in order to satisfy the test, not only to establish an expectation or belief that he would be granted a full agricultural tenancy, but also to show that such expectation of belief was of sufficiently concrete character to enable the court to give effect to it when fixing the rent and the rent review regime, and making provision for dilapidations, for the repairing covenant, and for other crucial terms.’ ‘ . . even if one were to assume that the first of the judge’s two findings stood intact, and that Mr William did have a firm expectation based on a clear understanding in 1989 that Mr William would continue to farm the land on the basis of an agricultural tenancy, one asks inevitably, an expectation of such a tenancy on what terms? In seeking to answer that question I think that unfortunately Mr William runs into insuperable difficulties, since, as the judge recognised in the same passage in the first part of his judgment, the matter was not discussed in any detail, whereas to my mind the detail was all important, yet so many potentially insoluble problems were left up in the air.’
Judges:
Hirst, Swinton Thomas and Mantell LJJ
Citations:
[1997] EWCA Civ 2650
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Crabb v Arun District Council CA 23-Jul-1975
The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .
Cited by:
Cited – Parker v Parker ChD 24-Jul-2003
Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time.
Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Estoppel
Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.143049