Q&As

A tenant triggers a break option in a lease. The landlord and tenant agreed terms for a new lease and the tenant has executed the new lease. The break date has passed and the landlord refuses to complete. The tenant remains in occupation. Can the tenant bring a proprietary estoppel claim and are the principles of detriment/countervailing benefit relevant?

read titleRead full title
Published on LexisPSL on 25/01/2018

The following Property Disputes Q&A provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • A tenant triggers a break option in a lease. The landlord and tenant agreed terms for a new lease and the tenant has executed the new lease. The break date has passed and the landlord refuses to complete. The tenant remains in occupation. Can the tenant bring a proprietary estoppel claim and are the principles of detriment/countervailing benefit relevant?
  • Detriment and countervailing benefit
  • ‘Subject to contract’ negotiations

A proprietary estoppel action can found a cause of action and is used where a party (B) seeks to assert a proprietary right to land belonging to another party (A) in circumstances where B has been lead to believe, by a promise, words or conduct and/or by acquiescence from A, that they (B) have or can expect to acquire an interest in the land.

Detriment and countervailing benefit

Regarding the issue of detriment and countervailing benefit, in the case of Rawlings v Chapman, HHJ David Cooke in summarising the law on proprietary estoppel stated that:

‘In considering what detriment the claimant has suffered, the court must take into account any countervailing benefits that she has received, such as residing in the owner’s property rent free.’

If a proprietary estoppel claim succeeds, an equity arises in the claimant's favour. In Davies v Davies, the Court of Appeal set out nine propositions to be considered by the court in applying that equity, which included that:

‘I

Related documents:

Popular documents