Howe & Anor v Gossop & Anor

A proprietary estoppel may arise despite non-compliance with section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. There is no separate requirement that the circumstances be exceptional. The essential question is whether the claimant reasonably relied to detriment on a promise seriously intended to be relied upon, such that it would be unconscionable for the landowner to insist on strict legal rights.

Section 2 does not bar equitable relief where the relief prevents assertion of legal title but does not enforce or give effect to an invalid contract for the disposition of land. An agreement may be analysed divisibly where the relevant land and promise are sufficiently certain, even though another part of the wider transaction remains uncertain.

Mr and Mrs Howe appealed from an order of HHJ Saffman in the County Court in Leeds dated 16 December 2019. The order gave Mr and Mrs Gossop an irrevocable licence to use part of land owned by the Howes as a garden for their adjacent house, based on proprietary estoppel.

The parties had orally agreed that the Gossops would receive two areas of land in return for waiving a £7,000 debt. The boundaries and permitted use of the Green Land were sufficiently certain, but the Grey Land remained uncertain. The central issues were whether section 2(1) barred the estoppel, whether an exceptional case was required, whether uncertainty concerning the Grey Land prevented relief concerning the Green Land, and whether the parties intended the oral agreement to be immediately binding.

1. Appeal dismissed. The order granting the Gossops an irrevocable licence over the Green Land was upheld.
2. Proprietary estoppel rests on assurance or representation, reasonable reliance and detriment. In this promise-based case, the relevant question was whether the Gossops reasonably believed that the promise concerning the Green Land was seriously intended to be relied upon, and whether it would be unconscionable for the Howes to resile from it.
3. Section 2(1) was not a bar. The relief did not enforce the oral agreement by ordering a transfer of the Green Land. It prevented the Howes from asserting their legal right to possession and provided a licence which satisfied the equity without contradicting the statutory policy governing contracts for the disposition of land.
4. The court rejected the suggested additional requirement that the facts be exceptional. The court must assess unconscionability broadly and consider the matter in the round. The observations derived from Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Limited and Herbert v Doyle concerned attempts to enforce incomplete, non-compliant contracts, rather than imposing an independent threshold for every proprietary estoppel claim.
5. Uncertainty concerning the Grey Land did not prevent relief concerning the Green Land. The Green Land was clearly identified, its permitted use was agreed, and the Gossops’ detrimental reliance related to the promise concerning that land. The composite nature of the wider bargain therefore made no logical difference.
6. The trial judge was entitled to find that the oral agreement was intended to be immediately binding and capable of being acted upon. The later attempt to reduce it to writing did not prevent an equity from arising earlier.

• High Court (Chancery Division): appeal from the County Court in Leeds dismissed; order of HHJ Saffman dated 16 December 2019 upheld.