Yeoman's Row Management and Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring v James Cobbe
Yeoman's Row Management and Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring v James Cobbe
- 2006
[2006] EWCA Civ 1139, 31 July 2006. Concerns the most satisfactory form of relief to be granted after a claim alleging proprietary estoppel had been allowed. Appeal by Y against a decision that C had established proprietary estoppel against Y and was thus entitled to a lien over property to secure C's interest in its increase in value. Appeal also by L against the judge's second decision to vary the terms of the order under the main judgment. L, the sole director of Y, had reached an oral agreement in principle to sell a property (in which she held one flat personally) to C if he successfully obtained planning permission to redevelop it. C secured it, relying on the belief that he would keep any profit from the development subject to a shared overage agreement. Y did not honour the agreement and no binding sales contract ever materialised. C pleaded successfully for proprietary estoppel and relief was set as a lien for 50% of the increase of the value of the property with planning permission. "Held": the 50% lien was the least unsatisfactory of the various forms relief might take. C's lien to cover L's leasehold interest was to be set aside.
YEOMAN'S ROW MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER V COBBE
LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1989 S2
HOLIDAY INNS INC V BROADHEAD
England and Wales--1543-
[2006] EWCA Civ 1139, 31 July 2006. Concerns the most satisfactory form of relief to be granted after a claim alleging proprietary estoppel had been allowed. Appeal by Y against a decision that C had established proprietary estoppel against Y and was thus entitled to a lien over property to secure C's interest in its increase in value. Appeal also by L against the judge's second decision to vary the terms of the order under the main judgment. L, the sole director of Y, had reached an oral agreement in principle to sell a property (in which she held one flat personally) to C if he successfully obtained planning permission to redevelop it. C secured it, relying on the belief that he would keep any profit from the development subject to a shared overage agreement. Y did not honour the agreement and no binding sales contract ever materialised. C pleaded successfully for proprietary estoppel and relief was set as a lien for 50% of the increase of the value of the property with planning permission. "Held": the 50% lien was the least unsatisfactory of the various forms relief might take. C's lien to cover L's leasehold interest was to be set aside.
YEOMAN'S ROW MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER V COBBE
LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1989 S2
HOLIDAY INNS INC V BROADHEAD
England and Wales--1543-