Orgee v Orgee  EWCA Civ 2650
LAND LAW – PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL – CERTAINTY OF INTEREST
The defendant agreed to farm the claimant’s land on the understanding that he would be given an agricultural tenancy, and bought tools and stock in reliance on this understanding. However, the tenancy never materialised as the parties never agreed the terms (including rent). In response to claim for possession, the defendant claimed that he was entitled to a tenancy due to proprietary estoppel.
A person will have an inchoate ‘equity’ in land if they can establish proprietary estoppel. Establishing this requires proof that the land-owner made an unequivocal representation that they had a proprietary interest, which they relied on to their detriment such that it would be unconscionable to renege on the representation. The inchoate equity that results from proprietary estoppel can be satisfied by the court using a range of remedies: whatever remedy would do the minimum amount of justice in the case.
The issue in this case was the degree of certainty which was required as to the proprietary interest the defendant believed himself to be entitled to.
The Court of Appeal held in the claimant’s favour.
The Court noted that the maximum extent of what can be granted to satisfy the inchoate equity is what the defendant believes himself to be entitled to. It followed from this that it was not enough that the defendant merely believed himself to be entitled to a tenancy. Rather, the defendant must show that his belief was sufficiently concrete and detailed to allow the court to give effect to it.
In this case, the defendant’s belief was insufficiently concrete: he had no expectations as to the terms of the lease or the rent to be paid which the court could put into effect.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related ServicesView all
Related ContentJurisdictions / Tags
Content relating to: "UK Law"
UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.
R v M (J) and Another - 2012
JM and SM had been involved in a fight with a few doormen in a nightclub. One of the doormen, who had no signs of health problems, had a renal artery aneurysm and died. JM and SM were charged with affray and manslaughter caused by an unlawful act (affray being the unlawful act). ...
Barclays v Fairclough Building Ltd
B employed F to clean a roof which was made of corrugated sheets. F did not take any safety precautions when cleaning. The premises were contaminated......