LAND LAW

Land Law

Land Law

The higher enclosures have had to grapple with the boundaries of the doctrines of proprietary estoppel and constructive trusts on a number of events in latest years. In specific, there have been important situations on the role these values play in the case of junction ownership of house, generally in a family context, for demonstration the recent dwelling of Lords' decision in Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432, [2007] 2 All ER 929. The flexible promise of both proprietary estoppel and constructive trusts to supply a route to redress in situations of informal or else inchoate affirmations is well known. However, the possibility of setting up such a assertion in the financial context should now be advised in the lightweight of the values set out in the significant conclusion of Yeoman's strip administration Ltd v Cobbe [2008] UKHL 55.

The facts of that case were as follows:      ?     The respondent, Mr Cobbe, entered into an agreement with the appellant company with the intention of realising the development value in the appellant's property, a block of thirteen flats.      ?     The agreement, described as an agreement in principle and agreed between the parties orally, was that Mr Cobbe would at his own expense apply for planning permission to demolish the existing block of flats and to erect a terrace of six houses.      ?     Upon the grant of planning permission and the obtaining of vacant possession from the sitting rent act protected tenants the property would be sold to Mr Cobbe for £12m. Mr Cobbe would then evolve the property in agreement with the planning permission and deal the six houses. Once the dwellings were traded Mr Cobbe would pay to the company 50% of the allowance, if any, by which the whole proceeds of sale exceeded £24m.

At substantial total cost, Mr Cobbe got the essential planning consent, after which the business determined that it was unhappy with the financial terms of the affirmation and proposed that the upfront payment for the buy of the house by Mr Cobbe should be advanced to £20m, with the payment on the culmination of development and sale altered to 40% of any advances exceeding £40m. Mr Cobbe was reluctant to acquiesce to those periods and commenced court proceedings.

Mr Cobbe was incapable to request specific performance and damages (contractual respite) due to the obligation of section 2(1) of the Law of house (Miscellaneous Provisions) proceed 1989 (LP(MP)A 1994) that a contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land be made in writing. Accordingly, he claimed that had an interest in the property on the basis of proprietary estoppel or a constructive trust. He also included personal (as opposed to proprietary) claims in respect of the time and expense he had incurred in obtaining planning permission in reliance on the agreement in principle.

At first example Mr Cobbe won on the surrounds of proprietary estoppel. Mr fairness Etherton discovered that: “Mrs Lisle-Mainwaring, on behalf of [the appellant] encouraged Mr Cobbe to ...