Cobbe v Yeomans Row Management Ltd & Ors, Rev 1

Cobbe v Yeomans Row Management Ltd & Ors, Rev 1

The conduct of Mrs Lisle-Mainwaring, acting for the First Defendant, induced Cobbe to expend substantial time and money pursuing planning permission in the belief that the Second Agreement would be honoured. This belief was encouraged and relied upon, and the Defendants' subsequent refusal to honour the agreement after planning permission was granted was unconscionable. The requirements for proprietary estoppel were satisfied, entitling Cobbe to a lien for half the increase in value of the Property due to the grant of planning permission. Relief is not barred by section 2 of the 1989 Act as the claim is not for enforcement of a contract but for satisfaction of an equity arising from...

Parties
Claimant: James Cobbe; First Defendant: Yeomans Row Management Ltd; Second Defendant: Robert Lisle-Mainwaring; Third Defendant: Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for proprietary estoppel allowed; lien granted in favour of Cobbe. Claim against Mrs Lisle-Mainwaring dismissed.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Constructive Trust, Restitution, Lien, Contract Formation, Corporate Veil
Property Law Equity Proprietary Estoppel Constructive Trust Restitution Lien Contract Formation Corporate Veil

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Cobbe

Claimant

Yeomans Row Management Ltd

First Defendant

Robert Lisle-Mainwaring

Second Defendant

Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary estoppel arises from the Second Agreement between Cobbe and the Defendants
  2. 2 Whether a constructive trust can be imposed in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether restitution is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The conduct of Mrs Lisle-Mainwaring, acting for the First Defendant, induced Cobbe to expend substantial time and money pursuing planning permission in the belief that the Second Agreement would be honoured. This belief was encouraged and relied upon, and the Defendants' subsequent refusal to honour the agreement after planning permission was granted was unconscionable. The requirements for proprietary estoppel were satisfied, entitling Cobbe to a lien for half the increase in value of the Property due to the grant of planning permission. Relief is not barred by section 2 of the 1989 Act as the claim is not for enforcement of a contract but for satisfaction of an equity arising from...

Court Disposition

Claim for proprietary estoppel allowed; lien granted in favour of Cobbe. Claim against Mrs Lisle-Mainwaring dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Property is subject to a lien in favour of Cobbe for half the increase in value as at 18 March 2004 due to the grant of planning permission.
  • Valuation to be carried out as at 18 March 2004, disregarding effect of the planning application of 3 July 2003.