Howe & Anor v Gossop & Anor

Howe & Anor v Gossop & Anor

The court held that proprietary estoppel can arise where an oral agreement for the disposition of land does not comply with section 2, provided the relief does not amount to enforcing a void contract. The parties intended the oral agreement regarding the Green Land to be immediately binding, the respondents acted to their detriment, and it would be unconscionable for the appellants to assert their strict legal rights. There is no requirement that the facts be 'exceptional' for proprietary estoppel to arise.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Anthony Richard Howe; Claimant/appellant: Deirdre Howe; Defendant/respondent: Cheryl Gossop; Defendant/respondent: Dean Gossop
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Oral Agreements for Land, Unconscionability
Property Law Equity Proprietary Estoppel Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 Oral Agreements for Land Unconscionability

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Richard Howe

Claimant/appellant

Deirdre Howe

Claimant/appellant

Cheryl Gossop

Defendant/respondent

Dean Gossop

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary estoppel can arise where an oral agreement for the disposition of land does not comply with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether the facts must be 'exceptional' for proprietary estoppel to override statutory formalities
  3. 3 Whether the parties intended the oral agreement to be immediately binding

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that proprietary estoppel can arise where an oral agreement for the disposition of land does not comply with section 2, provided the relief does not amount to enforcing a void contract. The parties intended the oral agreement regarding the Green Land to be immediately binding, the respondents acted to their detriment, and it would be unconscionable for the appellants to assert their strict legal rights. There is no requirement that the facts be 'exceptional' for proprietary estoppel to arise.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The order granting the respondents an irrevocable licence to occupy and use the Green Land as a garden for so long as they live and continue to own Lea Farm is upheld.