Land - Licences & Proprietary Estoppel (1)

1. David, the registered owner of Le Nid, persuaded Clarissa, his girlfriend, to go and live with him. He promised that she could stay as long as she wished and they agreed that she would give up her flat, decorate the kitchen and build a second garage for her car. She moved in, decorated the kitchen, and built the garage. After three years the relationship broke down, and David agreed to sell the house to Eric. Eric visited the house while Clarissa was shopping, saw her clothes, and was told that they belonged to a friend who would not be staying long. Clarissa wishes to stay in the house. Will she be able to stay (i) while David remains owner, and (ii) after David has sold to Eric?

Possible nature of C’s ‘interest’ (if any)
1. Trust
- Conditions to be satisfied: Apply Rosset, Cooke, Le Foe
- Unlikely to have a trust: no contribution, no common intention

2. Contractual Licence
- Conditions to be satisfied: Contractual conditions – offer & acceptance; certainty of term; intended legal relation;
- Apply Tanner
- Effect on David? At law, contractual licence is revocable with damages & compensation to the licencee; in equity, revocation can be injuncted by licencee
- Effect on Eric? Contractual licencee does not bind third party; Eric can take free the good title

3. Estoppel Licence
- Conditions to be satisfied: Apply Taylor Fashions
- Representation: Assumption & expectation encouraged by landowner
- Detriment
- Reliance
- Would she have done it anyway without the promise?
- Detrimental can be in non-financial terms
- What about benefits she got from the promise? Did benefits outweigh the detriments?
- Effect on David? There are 5 possible results if it is ruled that there is an estoppel licence
(1) Fee sample: Pascoe v Turner, but too much compared to the promise
(2) Lease for life: Griffiths v Williams
(3) Licence for life: Inwards v Baker
(4) Tenancy for life under a trust: Ungurian v Lesnoff
(5) Compensation (monetary)
- (2), (3), (4) are probable, but (5) will be most likely: Dodsworth v Dodsworth, Burrows & Burrows v Sharp
- Effect on Eric? LRA 2002 s116: proprietary estoppel is CAPABLE of binding successor of title
- Equity arises when detriments occur: thus bind third party if registered (should be the same for unregistered land)
- If not registered, LRA 2002 Schedule 3: Actual occupation that is visible upon reasonable inspection at the disposition of the house – Chokar v Chokar