In 1869 Barber granted a 99-year lease of three acres of land in east London, subject to a covenant against assignment or sub-letting without consent. In 1874, in breach of covenant, he sub-let one acre on an annual tenancy to Willmott (who owned a sawmill on adjoining land) and gave him an option to acquire the whole of the three acres. Willmott spent money in levelling the land and laying it out as a timber-yard. In 1877 Barber purported to surrender his term to his landlord, Bowyer, and take an immediate re-grant (it is not clear whether Barber was dishonest or simply disorganised). Then Willmott exercised his option and sued Barber for specific performance, joining Bowyer as a party and seeking a declaration that he had unreasonably refused consent. The real issue was whether Bowyer had disabled himself, by acquiescence, from objecting to the breach of covenant. The court described five elements which were required to be shown if a person’s legal rights were to be overborne by a proprietary estoppel. ‘It has been said that the acquiescence which will deprive a man of his legal rights must amount to fraud, and in my view that is an abbreviated statement of a very true proposition. A man is not to be deprived of his legal rights unless he has acted in such a way as would make it fraudulent for him to set up those rights. What, then, are the elements or requisites necessary to constitute fraud of that description? In the first place the plaintiff must have made a mistake as to his legal rights. Secondly, the plaintiff must have expended some money or must have done some act (not necessarily upon the defendant’s land) on the faith of his mistaken belief. Thirdly, the defendant, the possessor of the legal right, must know of the existence of his own right which is inconsistent with the right claimed by the plaintiff. If he does not know of it he is in the same position as the plaintiff, and the doctrine of acquiescence is founded upon conduct with a knowledge of your legal rights. Fourthly, the defendant, the possessor of the legal right, must know of the plaintiff’s mistaken belief of his rights. If he does not, there is nothing which calls upon him to assert his own rights. Lastly,’- if I may digress, this is the important element as far as this appeal is concerned – ‘the defendant, the possessor of the legal right, must have encouraged the plaintiff in his expenditure of money or in the other acts which he has done, either directly or by abstaining from asserting his legal right.’ The court rejected a rigid approach, concluding:- ‘… principle requires a very much broader approach which is directed at ascertaining whether, in particular individual circumstances, it would be unconscionable for a party to deny that which, knowingly or unknowingly, he has allowed or encouraged another to assume to his detriment’. and ‘The inquiry which I have to make therefore, as it seems to me, is simply whether, in all the circumstances of this case, it was unconscionable for the defendants to seek to take advantage of the mistake which, at the material time, everybody shared …’.
Fry J
(1880) 15 ChD 96, [1880] UKLawRpCh 183, (1880) 43 LT 95
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ramsden v Dyson HL 1866
The Vice-Chancellor had held that two tenants of Sir John Ramsden, the owner of a large estate near Huddersfield, were entitled to long leases of plots on the estate. They ostensibly held the plots as tenants at will only, but they had spent their . .
Cited by:
Explained – Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD 1981
The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .
Cited – Gonthier and Another v Orange Contract Scaffolding Ltd CA 25-Jun-2003
The question of a proprietary estoppel as between landlord and tenant arose. An agreement had been reached subject to contract for the grant of a lease, with an option to purchase. The tenant was allowed into possession before the documentation was . .
Cited – Strover and Another v Strover and Another ChD 10-May-2005
Insurance policies had been taken out by the partners in a firm. The surviving family of one and the remaining partners contested ownership. The policy was held in part for the benefit of the family. The premiums had been paid from partnership . .
Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Cited – St Pancras and Humanist Housing Association Ltd v Leonard CA 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought possession of a garage. The defendant claimed adverse possession.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against an order for possession failed. The defendant had attended a meeting where his behaviour had allowed other parties to . .
Cited – Shaw v Applegate CA 1977
There was a covenant against the use of a property as an amusement arcade. Within three years the purchaser had installed amusement machines, but it was not until three years later that the plaintiffs issued proceedings for an injunction and . .
Appeal from (ChD) – Willmott v Barber CA 24-Jun-1881
The Judge, at the trial of an action in which there was a claim and counterclaim, thinking both parties in the wrong, dismissed the action without costs, and also dismissed the counter-claim with costs, but ordered that if the costs of the . .
Cited – Hopgood v Brown CA 3-Feb-1955
Two adjoining plots were conveyed to the same purchaser. Buildings were constructed, and the adjusted boundary required an obtuse angle. The plots were sold on separately but with the original straight boundaries. The plans on the conveyances had no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Equity, Estoppel
Leading Case
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.188218
