The Difference Between Common Intention Constructive Trusts and Proprietary Estoppel Has Been Described as ‘Illusory’ (Hayton). Do You Agree with This Statement? Consider How the Case Law Has Developed and Give Reasons for Your Answer.

1970 words 8 pages
The difference between common intention constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel has been described as ‘illusory’ (Hayton). Do you agree with this statement? Consider how the case law has developed and give reasons for your answer.

In his article ‘Equitable Rights of Cohabitees’ Hayton suggested that the distinction between common intention constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel has, over time, come to be but illusory and goes on further to propose that since the general direction of the development of the law has been to embrace the principle of preventing and remedying unconscionable conduct regardless of whether the claim brought before them was originally brought under the concept of a constructive trust or proprietary
…show more content…
Nevertheless, at a first glance, common intention constructive trusts and the doctrine of proprietary estoppel appear to have an overwhelming amount of similarities. The aim of both instruments is to enforce an informal promise between the legal landowner and the claimant. Both rely upon a promise which has been relied upon and a detriment on the part of the claimant resulting from the claimant’s reliance of the promise.

The existing body of case law has too frequently noted the similarities between the two concepts and their practical applicability in the past. This was first explicitly recognised in Lloyds Bank v Rosset. Similarly, in Yaxley v Gotts[2000], the court ruled in favour of the claimant in a claim brought under proprietary estoppel, mentioning obiter that the same conclusion would have been reached should the claim have been brought as resulting from a common intention constructive trust.

In Lloyds Bank v Rosset Lord Bridge held that a common intention to share the equitable title could only be inferred for a claimant if they had made a direct financial contribution to the acquisition of the property (be it to the purchase price, the payment of the deposit or the mortgage payments). However, Lady Hale in Stack v Dowden [2007] commented obiter that the bar was set ‘too high’ in this regard. In Abbott v Abbott she further developed the notion of the need to afford greater flexibility to the type

Related

  • Elements of the Law of Contract
    24205 words | 97 pages
  • ‘The decentralisation of retailing and other services has had a major impact on urban areas.’ To what extent do you agree with this statement
    884 words | 4 pages
  • In the short stories in ‘The Bloody Chamber’, Carter is excessively interested in violent instincts’. How far do you agree with this view?
    953 words | 4 pages
  • Does fairtrade has a future in this world
    3301 words | 14 pages
  • How Creativity Has Been Applied to a Business Idea or Problem
    1658 words | 7 pages
  • Describe Some Aspects of Your Learning About Helping in a Counselling Way and What This Has Taught You About Yourself
    2416 words | 10 pages
  • LAW4198 Australian Commercial Law
    27753 words | 112 pages
  • Modernization of Ntuc Income Case Study
    14060 words | 57 pages
  • “the Incompetence of Existing Government Contributed Greatly to the Outbreak of Revolutions” to What Extent Do You Agree with This Statement? Argue Your Case with Reference to the Russian Revolution (Oct 1917) and Chinese Revolution (1949).
    1873 words | 8 pages
  • Quistclose Trust - Lord Milett Judgement
    2445 words | 10 pages