Sahota v Prior & Anor

Sahota v Prior & Anor

Proprietary estoppel was established as the respondents relied on assurances made by agents of the appellant to their detriment, and section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 does not bar their claim as they are not seeking to enforce a void contract but to prevent recovery of possession based on equitable principles.

Parties
Appellant: Sahota; Respondent: Michael Prior; Respondent: Lesley Prior
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Possession Proceedings, Agency, Statutory Interpretation
Property Law Equity Proprietary Estoppel Possession Proceedings Agency Statutory Interpretation

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sahota

Appellant

Michael Prior

Respondent

Lesley Prior

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary estoppel prevents the appellant from recovering possession of the respondents' home
  2. 2 Whether statements made by Red 2 Black bind the appellant
  3. 3 Whether section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 bars the respondents' claim

Ratio Decidendi

Proprietary estoppel was established as the respondents relied on assurances made by agents of the appellant to their detriment, and section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 does not bar their claim as they are not seeking to enforce a void contract but to prevent recovery of possession based on equitable principles.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents may remain in their home for their lifetime or as long as they wish to reside, subject only to non-payment of rent.