Chapter 8 Scenario questions

. Una told her friend, Viktor, that he could make use of a plot of land she owned for growing his seedlings and setting up a small plant nursery business which, although not overly profitable, does provide some pocket money for Viktor. No money was exchanged and Una, a keen gardener herself, was keen to see Viktor succeed. Una would regularly tell Viktor that 'the plot will be yours when I'm gone' and that he 'would always have this plot for himself.' Viktor spent over ten years tending to the plot, working day and night and even installed new drainage and irrigation systems and ensuring compliance with local authority water standards. Una died and her estate wanted to sell the land from under Viktor. Viktor argued he had an interest in the land by way of estoppel. Which of the following most accurately reflects his position?

Viktor is in a strong position to succeed in establishing an interest by estoppel here. Una made assurances to him that he was to own the land and he relied reasonably on those assurances to his detriment. In the circumstances, it would be unconscionable not to allow Viktor's claim to proprietary estoppel.

Viktor is in a relatively strong position to succeed in establishing an interest by estoppel here. Una made assurances to him that he was to own the land and he relied on those assurances to his detriment. However, the problem for Viktor will be demonstrating that his reliance on the assurances was 'reasonable'. His claim may fail at this element.

Viktor is in a weak position as regards establishing an interest by estoppel here. Una made assurances to him that he was to own the land, he relied on those assurances to his detriment. However, the problem for Viktor will be demonstrating unconscionability on the basis that he has received an enormous benefit in working the land rent-free. Viktor's claim will fail.

Viktor is in a weak position as regards establishing an interest by estoppel here. Una made assurances to him that he was to own the land but Viktor will have difficult demonstrating detriment as his work and renovation of the land was purely for his own benefit and cannot therefore be seen as detrimental.

. Winnie has worked as a cleaner for Yvette for over 25 years at Yvette's highly valuable home, The Birches. Winnie has always been paid the same wage from day one to today: £30 a week. This sum has not been increased. Despite this, Winnie's role has expanded into a full-time carer including doing all the shopping and taking Yvette to medical appointments. Yvette, who was a deeply moral and religious woman, often commented that Winnie 'had a pure heart', 'an impressive work ethic', that she was immensely grateful, and that 'she would be rewarded'. Yvette has since died and Winnie seeks your advice on an estoppel claim. Which of the following most accurately reflects Winnie's position here?

Winnie is in a strong position to succeed in establishing an interest by estoppel here. Winnie's role as cleaner had clearly expanded way beyond its original remit. Her pay did not change and Winnie can easily demonstrate detriment.

Winnie is in a strong position to succeed in establishing an interest by estoppel here. Winnie has suffered clear detriment and undertook expansive duties in reliance on Yvette's comments as to her work ethic, gratitude, and offer of 'reward'. It would be unconscionable to deny Winnie's claim.

Winnie is in a weak position to succeed in establishing an interest by estoppel here. While Winnie will be able to point to clear assurances and reliance, it will be difficult to demonstrate detriment as Winnie was being paid for her services.

Winnie is in a weak position to succeed in establishing an interest by estoppel here. Winnie can seemingly demonstrate significant detriment but there are no assurances as to property rights here. Yvette's comments do not concern property rights but could be construed merely as gratitude for Winnie's long service. It would not be reasonable to rely on these scant comments in expectation of a property interest.

. Anna and Ben own a farm on which Christy, a neighbour, has been working for the past 20 years. Anna and Ben have no children of their own and were looking for someone to take over the family business. Christy fulfilled this role. She worked hard, often for little pay, and turned down the opportunity to go to university and work in London. Christy was allowed to live in the farmhouse rent-free. She later married a local man, Dave, who also moved into the farmhouse with Anna and Ben's blessing. There was no doubt in the assurances made to Christy from Anna and Ben: 'this farm will be yours when we have kicked the bucket' and, 'work hard and you'll be running this farm soon enough'. Anna and Ben have died. Your advice is sought as to the remedy available. Select one of the following.

Once the essential elements of an estoppel claim are established, the court proceeds to 'satisfy the equity' and select an appropriate remedy. This exercise involves locating the expectation raised by the assurances made and ordering a remedy to fulfil the entire extent of these expectations. Christy can expect to receive the farm and farmhouse on this basis.

Once the essential elements of an estoppel claim are established, the court proceeds to 'satisfy the equity' and select an appropriate remedy. This exercise involves an assessment of the detriment suffered and ordering a remedy to reflect this. Christy can expect to receive either the farm or the farmhouse but not both. She has suffered detriment but not sufficient to warrant receiving the freehold to both properties as this exceeds the detriment she has suffered.

Once the essential elements of an estoppel claim are established, the court proceeds to 'satisfy the equity' and select an appropriate remedy. This exercise involves locating the expectation and reliance and seeking a remedy which is proportionate. The court distinguishes between bargain and non-bargain cases. Where there is a clear bargain, the court will order a remedy, in most cases, to satisfy this bargain. Here, this would mean transfer of the farm and farmhouse.

. Evan worked pay-free in a hotel, The Royal, owned by his boyfriend, Frank, for over 15 years on the promise from Frank to Evan that 'one day, this hotel will be yours to own and run as you see fit'. Evan, in the face of such clear and repeated assurances, devoted his career to hospitality, living in the hotel, undertaking qualifications in hotel management, and refusing to pursue alternative career options. Frank was a hotel mogul and owned several hotels in the area. Frank's busy working schedule took its toll on his relationship with Evan and the couple split. Matters became acrimonious and court proceedings were initiated. At the last minute, Frank conceded that Evan could make out the elements of an estoppel claim but disputed the nature of any remedy. Evan wanted the freehold of the hotel transferred to him. Frank had planned to sell the hotel and resisted transfer of the freehold, arguing that Evan should receive no remedy at all. Your advice is sought. Select one of the following.

In view of the clear assurances made by Frank to Evan, the court will not hesitate in transferring the freehold ownership of the hotel over to Evan.

In view of Evan's relatively minor detriment suffered, the court will likely hold that a mere licence to occupy the hotel be ordered.

In view of the significant benefits that Evan has received in living, working, and being trained in a hospitality career at the hotel, the court will likely conclude that no remedy at all be ordered.

In view of the relationship breakdown, the desired sale of the hotel, and the need for a 'clean break', the court will likely order a monetary compensatory award be paid to Evan.

Quiz Content