Crabb v Arun District Council

Proprietary estoppel may create an enforceable interest in land and found a cause of action. An equity arises where an owner, by words or conduct, creates or encourages a reasonable expectation of a right, knows or intends that the claimant will rely on it, and the claimant acts to their detriment so that insistence on strict title would be unconscionable. A formal grant, enforceable contract or completed promise is unnecessary.

The court must identify the equity, determine its extent and select relief sufficient to satisfy it. Relief is flexible and may include an easement. The owner’s knowledge of the claimant’s intended course can suffice; prior notice of the precise detrimental act is not invariably required. When fixing terms, the court may account for loss caused by the owner’s later denial, including by granting the right without payment.

Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179 concerned adjoining landowners. The appellant held a contractual right of access at point A but wished to divide his land and obtain a second access at point B. The council agreed in principle to that access, left a gap in its boundary fence and installed permanent gates there.

Believing that access at point B had been or would be granted, the appellant sold the portion served by point A without reserving a right of way across it. The council later removed the gates and closed point B, leaving the retained land landlocked. The Vice-Chancellor dismissed the claim because there had been no definite assurance capable of founding an estoppel.

The central issue on appeal was whether the parties’ dealings raised an equity preventing the council from relying on its strict title and, if so, what right and terms were required to satisfy that equity.

1. Disposition. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal. The appellant was entitled to an easement giving access at point B and a right of way along Mill Park Road to Hook Lane. No payment was required. A declaration and injunction were granted, with their terms to be settled and liberty to apply.
2. Lord Denning MR. Proprietary estoppel can create enforceable rights and interests in land and may itself found a cause of action. An equity may arise without a binding contract, consideration, writing or an actual promise. It is enough that an owner’s words or conduct create or encourage a belief that strict legal rights will not be asserted, with knowledge or intention that the other person will act on that belief, and that the person does so act.
3. The council had accepted in principle that access would be provided at point B. Its subsequent installation of permanent gates dispensed with any anticipated formal processes and led the appellant reasonably to believe that the right had been accepted. The council knew that he intended to sell the two portions separately. It was unnecessary that it also know when he completed the sale without reserving alternative access.
4. Lawton LJ. On his assessment of the evidence, the council’s representative had given a firm undertaking that access would be granted. The council’s installation of the gates confirmed that understanding. The appellant then prejudiced himself by selling the front portion without retaining a right of way. Equity prevented the council from resiling from its undertaking.
5. Scarman LJ. The court had to determine whether an equity existed, its extent and the relief appropriate to satisfy it. An expectation of a future right, created or encouraged by the landowner, could suffice. A mistaken belief in an already existing legal right was not indispensable. The council’s prolonged silence, the fence opening and the gates directly and indirectly encouraged the expectation. In those circumstances, the appellant’s failure to consult the council immediately before selling did not destroy the equity.
6. Relief. Equity required protection sufficient to prevent unconscionable reliance on the council’s strict title. Although reasonable payment might originally have been appropriate, the council’s closure of the access had sterilised the land for several years. That loss justified granting the easement without payment, subject to reasonable non-monetary terms if required.

1. Court of Appeal: In Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179, the court unanimously allowed the appellant’s appeal and granted an easement, a declaration and an injunction without requiring payment.
2. Vice-Chancellor: Sir John Pennycuick dismissed the claim on 29 January 1974. He held that the absence of a definite assurance prevented an estoppel from arising. No report citation for that judgment is stated.