Property ownership and rights related to governance are major subjects in the UK, and different arguments for ensuring fairness and justice are achieved. The major issues related to properly include ownership and tenant, sales and purchase, land registration, easements, and covenants. The main focus of this question is the application of proprietary estoppel in a battle for flexibility and fairness among the parties involved. According to Waghorn (2023), the law of estoppel is a principle that prevents a person from asserting a claim previously agreed on or a promise and assurance made regarding property rights. For instance, if a formal or non-formal agreement had been made to let individual A enjoy specific rights on the property of B, the law guides the rights of individual A in exercising the assured rights. By doing this, the court emphasizes the need for flexibility to achieve justice and fairness. However, it is only sometimes simple to establish the law of estoppel. Waghorn (2023) posited that the claimant must illustrate clear assurance or promise, connect to reasonably rely on the promise, and suffer detriment on the promise. The absence of any of these parameters leads to difficulties upholding the law, and a fair ruling may not support the existence of the law of proprietor estoppel.
Over the last decade, UK courses have emphasized the need for flexibility to ensure that primary intentions are met and the complainant is treated fairly. In a broader picture, this ensures the prevention of unjust enrichment (Pawlowski & Brown, 2021). In other words, introducing flexibility considers unique facts, interests, and hardships involved in the process. It is important to balance competing interests to prevent unjust outcomes. An excellent example can be taken from the case of Swindon Borough Council v Wiltshire (Hackett, 2020). In this case, Mr. Wiltshire had arranged to improve his living house in exchange for continued tenancy. After heavy investment in the room, the lord, Swindon Borough Council, sought to evict him. However, Wiltshire argued before the court, and the ruling favored him. The court justified that the landlord was not objecting to the improvement as a means of continued tenancy. In addition, Wiltshire’s hand suffered financial detriment, and the improvements were attached to reliance on his continued stay in the house (Hackett, 2020). As a result, the court protects oppression and denial of justice to Mr Wiltshire as a tenant. In addition, the court helps promote certainty and confidence in complex cases where each person has intricacies on the rights to the property (Pawlowski & Brown, 2021).
Taking this case as an example, applying flexibility highlights common law’s rigidity and considers evolving societal norms and economic and technological dynamics (Búzás & Graham, 2020). Promoting traditional legal rules is frequently criticized for emphasizing formalities and lack of diversity. For instance, Charlton and Charlton (1995) present George Charlton as a father who promised his son an inheritance on the land, and the son made investments and improvements to the land, hoping for an inheritance (Grassby, 1998). By upholding the law of estoppel, Christorpher was considered the right heir, which would not be possible in traditional law. According to Clarke (2020), Christopher would need formal documents and an agreement supporting him as the benefit. A similar situation can be held between a farmer and his nephew. Since no legal documents support the transfer of property to nephews, it will be difficult for a reply to be considered the heir to the property (Waghorn, 2023.). However, not in all cases where the court proves the existence of the law of estoppel, there are crucial parameters that need to be acquired.
The first parameter is unequivocal assurance. When clarity is mentioned, the law refers to the law of estoppel, which holds when a defined property right is injured and a condition attached to fulfillment. According to Fried (2015), there should be no room for misinterpretation of the binding nature of the promise. However, the promise may take different forms, such as verbal, written, or conduct that resembles a promise, as seen in the case of Swindon Borough Council v Wiltshire (Hackett, 2020). The existence of a promise or assurance is evaluated on intent to create legal relations. In addition, reliance and detriment parameters are considered fundamental elements of the law. Reliance illustrates that one party genuinely believed in the promise of the other, prompting him/ her to give up other opportunities, invest significant time and effort, or make financial investments. In other words, they are considered as losses suffered in the process of relying on the promise.
This knowledge was illustrated by Combe V Combe (1959). Mr Combe was a successful businessman, while his daughter worked in business management in her father’s company (Combe v Combe, 1995). When the case was presented in court, Mary argued that she had given up other job opportunities and was obligated to receive a house as a gift, which had been promised. However, the court rejected the claim due to unclear assurance, insufficient detriment, and an alternative explanation (Coniston, 1997). In support, the court proposed that Mary had been receiving a salary for her contribution to the business, and there was no clear alleged promise that she would receive a house to support the business. Holding this rule, the court expounded that Mary would have worked at the business simply for family relations or inheritance. Similarly, Ramsden V Dyson (1866) presents a similar case where Mr. Ramsdell, a nephew, failed to ensure inheriting a farm after working for his brother-in-law (QC, 2016).
Critic
In the above scenario, the law of estoppel has played a significant role in establishing grounds for fairness and justice regarding property rights. Mr Wiltshire’s rights are paramount to avoid exploitation by the landlord (Hackett, 2020). Despite this achievement, the flexibility of property law faces criticism for its implication to existing legal guidelines and the opportunity for more exploration through manipulation of the law to fit personal interests. According to Anderson & Holober (2011), the law indirectly encourages reliance, creating a burden on the property owners. For instance, when individuals have informal promises, they create a notion that they can give up other opportunities to enforce these promises under estoppel law. This lowers the productivity and creativity needed in a community. Also, this law is considered a limiting factor for property owners as they lack full control of their property in terms of freedom to change plans on their property rights (QC, 2016).
Consequently, there is an impact on the property market, which could have been sold, but through informed practice, I considered claimants proper. In addition, the informalities create uncertainty regarding the guidelines for future rulings. Property owners and claimants need help understanding what might be the basis of the ruling. This makes it open for adjustment to the promises, reliance, and opportunities that have been forgone. In one way, this might lead to manipulated evidence (Anderson & Holober, 2011).
conclusion
Despite these conflicting issues, adjustments are needed to improve the application of Estoppel law and achieve balance in society (Waghorn, 2023). First, clear standards for reliance and consistency in application must be set. To avoid uncertainty, clear guidelines and precedents can be listed that help the parties fully understand that assurance, promise, and detriment are valid. This can be achieved by expanding the scope of the law to incorporate the basis of silence or representation made by third parties. Also, the basis of clarity conflicts with this law, and improvement would need to be done where forma representation can be established before engagement to tasks. For informal agreements, legal professionals should set procedures for preventing unformal estoppel. By doing this, fairness and justice can be achieved, minimizing the impact of flexibility.