Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd
1982 · QB 133
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Tenants of shop premises carried out improvements in the belief that an option to renew their lease was valid. The option was in fact void for want of registration. They said the landlord was estopped from taking the point.
- Issue
- Must every one of Fry J's five probanda be satisfied?
- Held
- Oliver J held that the five probanda are not a straitjacket. The question is whether, in all the circumstances, it is unconscionable for the owner to insist on his strict rights. On the facts of the main claim, the was not made out, because the tenants had not been encouraged by the landlord.
- Principle
- turns on unconscionability, not on forcing the facts into Willmott v Barber.
- Why it matters
- It widens Fry J's list. Encouragement, reliance and detriment still have to be there.
Words and Latin in this note
- Proprietary estoppel
- An equity that arises when an owner leads another to believe he has or will get a right in property, and the other relies on it to his detriment. The court gives the minimum remedy needed. Open the note.
- Licence by estoppel
- An equity that arises where the owner encourages another to act to their detriment, believing they have or will have a right in the land. The court gives whatever remedy is just. Open the note.
- Estoppel
- A rule that stops a person from going back on something they said or did when another person relied on it. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.