Yeoman's Row Management Ltd. & Anor v Cobbe [2006] EWCA Civ 1139 (31 July 2006)

Yeoman's Row Management Ltd. & Anor v Cobbe [2006] EWCA Civ 1139 (31 July 2006)

Proprietary estoppel was established as the claimant acted to his detriment in reliance on the defendant's promise, which was encouraged and induced by the defendant, and it was unconscionable for the defendant to withdraw after the claimant secured planning permission. Relief should reflect the increased value of the property attributable to the claimant's efforts, not merely reimbursement of expenditure. Section 2 of the 1989 Act does not preclude proprietary estoppel in these circumstances.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1139
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Yeoman's Row Management Limited; Appellant/defendant: Mrs Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring; Respondent/claimant: Mr James Cobbe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; proprietary estoppel upheld; relief affirmed.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Constructive Trust, Unconscionable Conduct, Remedies for Failed Contract, Planning Permission, Oral Agreements, Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
Equity Property Law Contract Law Proprietary Estoppel Constructive Trust Unconscionable Conduct Remedies for Failed Contract Planning Permission +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yeoman's Row Management Limited

Appellant/defendant

Mrs Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring

Appellant/defendant

Mr James Cobbe

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary estoppel arises from an oral agreement to sell property where claimant acted to his detriment in reliance on defendant's promise
  2. 2 Whether relief should be limited to reimbursement or extend to a share in increased property value
  3. 3 Whether section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 bars proprietary estoppel claims

Ratio Decidendi

Proprietary estoppel was established as the claimant acted to his detriment in reliance on the defendant's promise, which was encouraged and induced by the defendant, and it was unconscionable for the defendant to withdraw after the claimant secured planning permission. Relief should reflect the increased value of the property attributable to the claimant's efforts, not merely reimbursement of expenditure. Section 2 of the 1989 Act does not preclude proprietary estoppel in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; proprietary estoppel upheld; relief affirmed.

Orders

  • Claimant entitled to a lien for 50% of the increase in value of the property attributable to planning permission as at 18 March 2004.
  • Inquiry ordered to ascertain the amount of increase in value.