000			01226cab a22002415a 4500
001			L148042
008			090715e20090704xxk g 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u148042
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aDollar, Peta
245	0	0	_aGet back to basics
260			_c2009
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0926) 4 July 2009, 108-110(3)
520			_aProperty estoppel enables claimants to go to court to seek relief, but a recent House of Lords decision makes it obvious that estoppel use is becoming unprincipled. The following decisions suggests that courts should take a strict approach to proprietary estoppel claims and reinforces the need for strict compliance with Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 S2. "Cobb v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd" [2008] UKHL 55 (L1446550), "Hutchison v B&DF Ltd" [2008] EWHC 2286 (Ch) (L145803) and "Herbert v Doyle" [2008] EWHC 2663 (Ch).
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aYEOMANS ROW MANAGEMENT LTD V COBBE
650	2	4	_aHUTCHISON AND OTHERS V B & DF LTD
650	2	4	_aHERBERT V DOYLE
650	2	4	_aLAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1989
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL
942			_n0
999			_c81705 _d81705