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.

Willis v Hoare (1999)

332 words (1 pages) Case Summary

15th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Willis v Hoare (1999) 77 P & CR D42



The claimant was the head-tenant of a third-party’s land, and had granted a four-year sub-lease to the defendant. When the sub-lease expired, negotiations for a new lease broke down and the claimant sought possession of the land. The defendant argued that there was an understanding that the defendant would be offered a new sub-lease on the expiry of the existing sub-lease. However, there was no understanding as to what the terms of that new sub-lease would be.


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 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 held that the representation must be unequivocal and make clear the extent of the representee’s expected interest. If the representation produces an expectation which is too unclear for the courts to give effect to, then it does not matter how unconscionable the representor’s behaviour is: no estoppel will arise.

In this case, as there were no expectations as to what the new sub-lease would look like, the arrangement was too uncertain for the courts to enforce. There was therefore not a representation which could give rise to an estoppel.

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