Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Ltd

327 words (1 pages) Case Summary

17th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Ltd [1982] QB 133



The claimants were tenants of the defendant, and purported to have an option to renew the lease. While the defendants had initially believed such an option to exist, they denied it was enforceable, as it later turned out to be unregistered. The claimants claimed to have substantially improved the lot on the assumption that they had a right to renew the lease.


Proprietary estoppel arises where, due to the defendant representing to the claimant that the latter has a proprietary interest in land, which the claimant relies on, it would be unconscionable for the defendant to insist on his strict legal rights. A representation can be words or conduct, or silent acquiescence in circumstances where the defendant was aware of the claimant’s reliance on a belief in a proprietary interest.

The issue in this case, was whether the defendants made a representation which the claimants relied on.


The High Court held in favour of one of the claimants, but not the other.

The court was not convinced that the defendants had done anything to encourage the first claimants to make the improvements, nor had they sat by and done nothing in the belief that the claimants were only improving the lot because they thought they could renew the lease. Nor was it clear that there was reliance. Reliance requires there to be some causal link between the claimant’s actions and their decision to improve the lot, and the first claimant would likely have made the improvements even if they did not believe they had a right to renew.

By contrast, the defendants had encouraged the second claimant to make improvements in the belief that they could renew the lease.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / 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.

Related Articles