G Battersby ‘Contractual an estoppel licences as proprietary interests in land’ Conv. 1991 Jan/Feb 36 - 47
Looks at the law following the decision in Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989]. What is now the relationship between a contractual licence and one protected by an estoppels, the former not being capable of binding a third party, but the latter being capable of doing so? When will an interest arise by way of a contract as opposed to an estoppel, and vice versa?

M Pawlowski ‘Satisfying the equity in estoppel’ LQR 2002 118(Oct) 519 - 523
Looking at the fundamental aim of the proprietary estoppel doctrine in satisfying the equity with particular consideration of the cases of Jennings v Rice [2002] and Campbell v Griffin [2001].

M P Thompson ‘The flexibility of estoppel’ Conv. 2003 May/Jun 225 - 238
Provides a review of the decision in Jennings v Rice [2002] and looks at the courts approach in exercising its discretion when awarding a remedy to satisfy the equity.

S Gardner ‘The remedial discretion in proprietary estoppel – again’ LQR 2006 122 (Jul) 492 - 512
Looking at the discretionary jurisdiction of the courts when determining the remedy.

S Bright and B McFarlane ‘Proprietary Estoppel and Property Rights (2005) 64(2) CLJ 449
Looks at the circumstances where a proprietary estoppel claim will give rise to a property right. The central argument of the discussion is that proprietary estoppel should only give rise to a property right (as opposed to a personal right such as damages or a licence to use the land) where necessary to protect the claimant’s reasonable reliance. This may be in fewer cases than perhaps thought.

M Dixon ‘Confining and defining proprietary estoppel: the role of unconscionability’ (2010) 30 LS 408
Despite little guidance as to what unconscionability means (a central part of an estoppel claim) this article seeks to suggest that this concept has a clear meaning and is not therefore at the whim of judicial discretion.