Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 19.7 MB]
Categories:
Real Estate & Property Law
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Cost:
  • FREE
Length:
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Contributor(s):
Course Aims:

This podcast will inform listeners: exactly why the claim in Cobbe failed in the House of Lords, whereas he succeeded in both the courts below; the precise principles underlying the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, as re-formulated by Lord Scott in Cobbe; the possible significance of s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act for cases pleaded on estoppel; the relationship between proprietary estoppel and constructive trust; the possible circumstances in which a disappointed party may yet in future be able to rely on an oral agreement under which he was to have an interest in land, taking into account previous authority not overruled by Cobbe, and one subsequent case

Outcomes:
After completing the course you will:
  • Understand why exactly the claim in Cobbe failed in the House of Lords, whereas he succeeded in both the courts below;
  • Understand the precise principles underlying the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, as re-formulated by Lord Scott in Cobbe;
  • Appreciate the possible significance of s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act for cases pleaded on estoppel;
  • Understand the nature of the relationship between proprietary estoppel and constructive trust;
  • Appreciate the possible circumstances in which a disappointed party may yet be able to rely on an oral agreement under which he was to have an interest in land; and understand how that may best be pleaded.
Level:
Intermediate Difficulty: 3 of 5
Sources and References:
  • Law of Property Act 1925, s.53(1)(a); s.40 (repealed);
  • Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, s.2;
  • Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row [2008] UKHL 55; Court of Appeal decision [2006] EWCA Civ 1139 [2006] 1 WLR 2964;
  • Attorney General of Hong Kong v Humphreys Estate (Queen's Gardens) Ltd. [1987] AC 114; [1987] 2 WLR 343; [1987] 2 All ER 387, PC;
  • Anderson (Antiques) v Anderson Wharf (Hull) & anor [2007] EWHC 2086 (Ch);
  • Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210; [2000] 3 WLR 815; [2000] 2 All ER 289, CA;
  • Herbert v Doyle and anor.[2008] EWHC 1950 (Ch);
  • Holiday Inns Inc v Broadhead (1974) 232 EG 951;
  • Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159; [2003] 1 P & CR 100, CA;
  • Kinane v Mackie-Conteh [2005] EWCA Civ 45; [2005] WTLR 345, CA;
  • Lissimore v Downing [2003] 2 FLR 308;
  • Pallant v Morgan [1953] Ch 43, [1952] 2 All ER 951;
  • Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129, HL(E);
  • Walford v Miles [1992] 2 AC 128; [1992] 2 WLR 174;
  • Yaxley v Gotts [2000] Ch 162, [1999] 3 WLR 1217, [2001] 1 All ER 711, CA.

Examines the scope of the related doctrines of proprietary estoppel and constructive trust as a means of redress for disappointed parties to failed informal agreements for the transfer of interests in land, particularly in the commercial sphere, following the recent decision of the House of Lords in Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row [2008] UKHL 55. Notes especially and discusses the distinction apparently drawn in that case between a claimant’s expectation of a more or less complex contract relating to land, and of a 'certain interest' in the land itself; also the significance of obiter comments on the barrier represented by section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 to claims based on proprietory estoppel generally. Compares and places decision in context of previous authority in this area, particularly that of Yaxley v Gotts [2000] Ch 162.

Also looks at the possible application of the law as stated in Cobbe to an oral agreement for the transfer of land on terms unperformed by claimant in subsequent decided case of Herbert v Doyle [2008] EWHC 1950 (Ch). Summarises law as it now seems to stand.

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com