Brinnand v Ewens and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 284((6361) 21 November 1987, 1052-1055(2)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 3 June 1987 Appeal from cc decision rejecting a claim by the appellants in possession proceedings, to have acquired an interest in a house, on the ground of proprietary estoppel resulting from expenditure on repairs and improvements to the house by the appellants. CA recalled the four ingredients of proprietary estoppel as stated in Snell`s Principles of Equity. The difficulty in the present case was in regard to the fulfillment of the second and third requirements. With regard to the second, the appellants failed to show that they had incurred the expenditure in belief that they would obtain an interest in the whole property sufficient to justify the expenditure. As for the third requirement, even if the appellants had acted in that belief, there was no evidence that the owner of the house had done anything to encourage it. Therefore, the claim failed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS38431 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 10528-1001 |
CA 3 June 1987 Appeal from cc decision rejecting a claim by the appellants in possession proceedings, to have acquired an interest in a house, on the ground of proprietary estoppel resulting from expenditure on repairs and improvements to the house by the appellants. CA recalled the four ingredients of proprietary estoppel as stated in Snell`s Principles of Equity. The difficulty in the present case was in regard to the fulfillment of the second and third requirements. With regard to the second, the appellants failed to show that they had incurred the expenditure in belief that they would obtain an interest in the whole property sufficient to justify the expenditure. As for the third requirement, even if the appellants had acted in that belief, there was no evidence that the owner of the house had done anything to encourage it. Therefore, the claim failed.