The defendants orally agreed to sell the claimant a block of flats for andpound;12 million if he first obtained planning permission for it on terms as to a sharing of subsequent development profits. The claimant spent over andpound;100,000 and gained planning permission, whereupon the defendant resiled from the oral agreement and demanded andpound;20 million instead of andpound;12 million as the purchase price.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court upheld the grant to the claimant of a lien secured on the property for 50 per cent of the development value attributable to the obtaining of the planning permission. The 1989 Act had not displaced the doctrine of proprietary estoppel: ‘section 2 has no application to this proprietary estoppel claim. No concluded agreement was made. There can be no question of an action of enforce the Second Agreement. The section is irrelevant to an action to enforce a cause of action for proprietary estoppel which does not depend on the existence of a concluded agreement for sale or on the enforcement of it, but on the inducement and encouragement to get Mr Cobbe to apply for and obtain planning permission in the belief and expectation that he would get a binding contract for the sale of the Property for andpound;2 million plus overage.’
Mummery LJ, Dyson LJ, Sir Martin Nourse
[2006] EWCA Civ 1139, [2006] 1 WLR 2964
Bailii
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2(1) 2(5)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Yaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
Appeal from – Cobbe 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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Anderson Antiques (UK) Ltd v Anderson Wharf (Hull) Ltd and Another ChD 23-May-2007
anderson_andersonChD2008
The claimants owned land against which they said, the defendant had wrongfully registered notices. They sought removal of the notices, damages, and an injunction to prevent further notices being registered. The first defendant asserted an oral . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Estoppel, Land
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.244479