If you follow this structure, it should help you understand proprietary estoppel more clearly
Proprietary estoppel was established in order to prevent an individual from insisting on his strict legal rights where it would inequitable for him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties (crabb v arun)
The leading authority for this is Taylor fashion ltd v liverpool victoria trustees and sets out that in to bring a claim there must have been a representation, reliance on said representation and a detriment suffered
The claimant must show some kind of representation which lead them to believe that they would acquire rights over the land. The representation can be positive assurances and sometimes even mere silence is enough as long as it led the claimant to believe that they would acquire some rights over the land (ramsden v dyson). The assurance must be a promise (stillwell v simpson) and must express some positive rights in the land (layton v martin). The assurance can be left by will ( re basham) but must come from the owner (western fish products v penwith) and so cannot come from a witness/ tennant (gillet v holt)
Next we must go on to show that there was reliance on the above representation and that there was a change in position by the claimant (inwards v baker). There need not be a physical change in position (campbell v griffin) but leaving ones home to move in with another is sufficient ( maharas v chand). Any financial contribution must be in relation to the property (coombes v smith) and minor repairs are no sufficient (appleby v cowley)
Lastly we must establish that a detriment was suffered on part of the claimant. The courts will only award a right where a it can be shown that reliance on the representation had left them unconscionably disadvantaged. Detriment need not be purely financial but it must be linked with the belief that it would lead to them to acquire rights in the land (re basham). We must however note that any evidence of an inequity can defeat the claim (seldmore v dalby)
On the whole it can be established that ______ has a claim in proprietary estoppel over aadils land and so she can seek a remedy
As for remedies available to ______, they range from conveying the land, granting an occupational licence and even monetary compensation. Gillet v holt stated that "it is the job of the court to establish the maximum equity from the estoppel and then form a view as to what the minimum required is in order to satisfy justice between the parties". The court will never award more than necessary (parker v parker) and in some cases can even award less (sledmore v dalby)
Conveying the estate depends entirely on the representation expressing interest in the estate (pascoe v turner)
There must be proportionality between the expectation and the detriment (jennings v rice)
Monetary compensation can be awarded where the financial detriment is relatively small in relation to the value of the property ( dodsworth v dodsworth)
And occupational licence can also be granted where it would be deemd necessary
(Greasely v cooke)
