UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES
FACULTY OF LAW
EQUITABLE REMEDIES
Worksheet 5a
2007/08
PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL
(ACQUIESCENCE)
Owusu, CCLL, pp.186-203
Owusu, “Founding Specific Performance on Licence, Unjust Enrichment & Estoppel” (1981) 13
and 14 R.G.L. 135-166
Dilwyn v. Llewellyn (1862) 45 E.R. 1285, at p. 1286.
Ramsden v. Dyson: (1866) L.R. 1 H.L. 129, at 140-141.
Huning v. Ferners, (1711) 25 E.R. 59.
THE FIVE CONDITIONS (PROBANDA)
Willmott v. Barber (1880) 15 Ch. D. 96,.
KNOWLEDGE AND MISTAKEN BELIEF OF THE DEVELOPER/REPRESENTEE
Pilling v. Armatage (1806) 33 E.R. 31, 33.
Derrick v. Mohammed (1960) 2 W.I.R. 352.
CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE
Willmott v. Barber (1880) 15 Ch. D. 96.
cf: Rennie v. Youngs (1858) 44 E.R. 939.
RELIANCE DETRIMENT/ CHANGE OF POSITION TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE
DEVELOPER/REPRESENTEE
Jones v. Stones [1999] 1 W.L.R. 1739.
Greasley v. Cooke: [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1306, 1313, per Dunn, L.J.
Ives Investment Ltd. v. High [1967] 2 W.L.R. 789.
Skinner v. Daniel, Reeves et al (1981) 16 Barb. L.R. 21.
KNOWLEDGE OF THE OWNER / REPRESENTOR OF HIS RIGHT AND AWARENESS OF THE
MISTAKEN BELIEF OF THE DEVELOPER / REPRESENTEE
(THE OLD RULE)
Derrick v. Mohammed (1960) 2 W.I.R. 353.
Barclays Bank Plc v. Zaroovabli [1997] Ch. 321.
(THE NEW RULE)
Taylor Fashions Ltd. v. Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co. Ltd. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 576.
Skinner v. Daniel, Reeves et al. (1981) Barb. L.R. 21.
Amalgamated Investment and Property Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Texas Commerce International
Bank Ltd. [1981] 3 All E.R. 577.
Re Basham, [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1498.
Hackett v. Inverugie Investment Ltd. (1982) 32 W.I.R. 3.
Megarry and Wade, The Law of Real Property, 6 edn., at p.736, para.13-009.
th
REPRESENTATION / ENCOURAGEMENT
Jones v. Stones [1999] 1 W.LR. 1739,.
“the circumstance of looking on is in many cases as strong as using terms of encouragement”: Dann
v. Spurrier (1802) 32 E.R. 94, 95, per Lord Eldon.
McClurg v. Rogers et al (1976) 11 Barb. L.R. 35.
Clarke. v. Kellarie (1970) 16 W.I.R. 40.
EFFECT OF THE DOCTRINE
(A) CONFER A TITLE (SPECIFI