Mohammed v Gomez and others (Trinidad and Tobago)

Proprietary estoppel is not confined by rigid categories. Once a claim moves beyond specific contractual rights, an assurance may arise from conduct or acquiescence, and the required clarity depends on context. The court asks whether assurance, reasonable reliance and detriment, considered together, make it unconscionable for the landowner to resile. An equity may arise even where no precise legal interest was promised; the court must decide how it should be satisfied. Relief is the minimum equity necessary to do justice, assessed cautiously and in all the circumstances. A trial judge should not rely materially on statutory protection introduced without giving parties a fair opportunity to address it; protection is of little evidential relevance absent awareness and reliance. Where an option to purchase is available over a period, valuation is ordinarily at the date of exercise rather than the date when the option period begins.

Three related occupants built, maintained and improved homes on land owned successively by the Andrews, the appellant’s father and the appellant. They claimed that they had entered possession under informal arrangements giving them security of tenure and an eventual right to purchase, or alternatively that proprietary estoppel arose from the owners’ conduct and acquiescence.

The respondents’ statutory rights under the Land Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act lapsed when they failed to serve renewal notices. Jones J dismissed their claims, finding the alleged agreements unproved. On 26 April 2017, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago unanimously allowed the appeals, found proprietary estoppel by acquiescence, and granted 15-year tenancies with options to purchase.

The appeal concerned the trial judge’s reliance on the Rent Restriction Act, the pleading and proof of proprietary estoppel, and the form and valuation date of the equitable remedy.

The Board confirmed the Court of Appeal’s order, subject only to varying the valuation date for the purchase option.

1. Statutory context and appellate review. The Board declined to determine the proper interpretation of the Rent Restriction (Exclusion of Premises) Order, since that issue was unnecessary to the appeal. The trial judge had nevertheless erred by introducing the Rent Restriction Act for the first time in her judgment without inviting submissions. Any statutory protection was of little relevance unless the respondents knew of it and relied on it. The Court of Appeal was entitled to revisit the factual conclusions because the misdirection materially affected the assessment of the evidence. (paras [19]-[22])
2. Pleadings. The Court of Appeal was entitled to consider proprietary estoppel by acquiescence as an alternative case. References to an agreement or option to purchase did not make the claim contractual in substance. The pleadings relied on the original owner’s assurances, the respondents’ subsequent conduct, and the successive owners’ acquiescence. Developing that case caused no unfairness. (paras [30]-[31])
3. Proprietary estoppel. The Board relied on the context-sensitive approach in Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210, Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159 and Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18. Assurance, reasonable reliance and detriment are assessed together. Acquiescence may form part of the assurance, and no rigid requirement of precise legal terminology applies. In the family context, the informal understanding that the respondents could build and later purchase was sufficiently clear. Their permanent construction, expenditure and the owners’ acquiescence supported the equity, notwithstanding rejection of the alleged price term. (paras [23]-[35])
4. Remedy. Following the guidance in Henry v Henry [2010] UKPC 3, the court must adopt a cautious approach, consider all the circumstances, and grant the minimum equity necessary to do justice. The Court of Appeal acted within its discretion in using the security provided by the Land Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act as an analogy and granting 15-year tenancies with purchase options at half market value. However, consistently with section 5(5), the relevant valuation date was the date of exercise, not 31 May 2011. The order was varied accordingly. (paras [36]-[41])

• Privy Council: In [2019] UKPC 46, the Board confirmed the Court of Appeal’s order, subject to substituting the date of exercise of the purchase option as the valuation date.
• Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: On 26 April 2017, the court unanimously allowed the respondents’ appeals, found proprietary estoppel by acquiescence, and granted 15-year tenancies with options to purchase.
• High Court: Jones J dismissed the respondents’ claims, finding the alleged agreements unproved and the evidence consistent with statutory tenancies.