Private Client analysis: In Conway v Conway, the High Court clarified the interplay between proprietary estoppel and the statutory formalities required for contracts for the sale of land under section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A 1989). The case concerned an appeal from a first instance decision ordering specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of land as relief in a proprietary estoppel claim. In allowing the appeal, Mr Justice Michael Green held that that proprietary estoppel could not be used to obtain specific performance of an otherwise unenforceable oral contract for the sale of land, but remitted the question of equitable compensation to the County Court due to the absence of alternative relief in the pleadings. The decision clarifies that LP(MP)A 1989, s 2 bars relief that has the effect of enforcing void contracts while leaving open other forms of equitable relief that can satisfy the equity arising in estoppel cases. Written by Cameron Stocks, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers, who acted for the appellant at first instance and on appeal to the High Court.

Private Client analysis: A good illustration of the realistic limits of proprietary estoppel. The landlords sought to recover possession of a tenanted farm. After Notices to Quit were upheld at arbitration, the landlords' claim for possession was defended on the basis that the landlords' agent had promised the tenant and his son that the landlords would never seek to recover possession until 'fair compensation' was paid—ie enough money to allow the tenant to move on and carry on farming elsewhere. The judge held that this was, even at its highest, no more than a promise to negotiate, and so was not the sort of promise capable of giving rise to a proprietary estoppel interest: Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management. The landlords were entitled to possession of the farm, and the tenant's counterclaim was dismissed. Written by Christopher McNall, barrister at 18 St John Street Chambers, Manchester.

This Practice Note discusses issues that arise in proprietary estoppel in a property context. For a general discussion of proprietary estoppel, see Practice Note: Proprietary estoppel. The doctrine of proprietary estoppel Proprietary estoppel is a means by which property interests can be affected or created, so as to make the assertion of strict rights unconscionable. The estoppel gives rise to ‘an equity’ in favour of the person who is entitled to assert the estoppel. Unlike other kinds of estoppel, it gives rise to a cause of action. Proprietary estoppel arises where: • an owner of land (D) makes an assurance or promise, or gives encouragement, to another party (C) to believe that they have or will enjoy some right or benefit over D’s property • C reasonably relies on that assurance, promise or encouragement • C suffers detriment as a result of their reliance • then D seeks to take unconscionable advantage of C by denying them the right or benefit which they expected to receive Although all these elements must usually be satisfied,

Property Disputes analysis: This decision analyses the interaction between the equitable doctrines of proprietary estoppel and constructive trusts, and the formalities required by section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A 1989) for a valid contract for a disposition of land. The court considered whether a claim in proprietary estoppel was available where a contract for sale of property was invalid for want of compliance with LP(MP)A 1989, s 2, in the absence of a trust claim which would be excepted from the section under LP(MP)A 1989, s 2(5). The judge allowed a claim in proprietary estoppel granting narrower relief than the claimed transfer of the property which the contract would have effected, on the basis that LP(MP)A 1989, s 2 rendered the contract void, but it did not preclude the court from granting equitable relief to prevent unconscionability between the parties, provided the relief did not amount to enforcement of the void agreement so as to go behind the statute. Written by Tamsin Cox, barrister at Falcon Chambers.

Private Client analysis: A complex and valuable claim involving allegations of proprietary estoppel, invalid Wills and sham tenancies in respect of the valuable estate of a farmer and landowner who had many children and complex relationships. All the claims failed and the estate passed according to the last Will subject to the tenancies. Written by Richard Dew, of Ten Old Square.

In Thorner v Major, Lord Walker began his judgment by quoting from Simon Gardner in Introduction to Land Law (2007): ‘There is no definition of proprietary estoppel that is both comprehensive and uncontroversial (and many attempts at one have been neither).’ Lord Walker continued: ‘Nevertheless most scholars agree that the doctrine is based on three main elements, although they express them in slightly different terms: a representation or assurance made to the claimant; reliance on it by the claimant; and detriment to the claimant in consequence of his (reasonable) reliance.’ The overarching requirement is that of unconscionability: unless it is unconscionable for the promisor to be held to their promise, no relief will be granted. Once an entitlement to relief is made out, it is necessary for the Court to fashion a remedy. That was the focus of the Supreme Court in Guest v Guest which conclusively decided that the focus of the court is in making good the promise, subject to the question of whether the promise

Property Disputes analysis: There are three main points to take away from this judgement on a family proprietary estoppel claim. Firstly, the ‘rent free’ occupation of a matrimonial home by the claimant wife of the legal owner was not a ‘countervailing benefit’ which it was necessary or appropriate to take into consideration either in determining whether or not an equity had arisen in her favour or in assessing the appropriate remedy in her claim pursuant to the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. Secondly, it is unrealistic to expect ‘chapter and verse’ as to a counterfactual where, relying on the promisor’s representations, a promisee foregoes an opportunity (here the acquisition of an alternative property) and suffers detriment thereby. Thirdly, money spent on renovations to the property by her son and daughter-in-law but for the benefit of the claimant wife was capable of constituting a detriment to her for the purposes of establishing her claim in proprietary estoppel. Written by Mark Dubbery, barrister and mediator at Pump Court Chambers, who acted for the first respondent.

This Practice Note provides guidance on proprietary asset preservation injunctions (also referred to as proprietary injunctions and/or proprietary freezing injunctions) which prevent a defendant from dealing with particular assets over which the claimant asserts a proprietary right pending trial. It explains the differences between proprietary injunctions and freezing injunctions and sets out the test to be applied. It also describes the types of claims in which a proprietary injunction can be sought, and the circumstances in which a proprietary injunction might be varied to permit the defendant access to the assets for living and legal expenses. Finally, it discusses orders for disclosure of traceable assets. For a summary of a number of key and/or illustrative decisions relevant to proprietary freezing injunctions, see Practice Notes: • Proprietary freezing injunctions—illustrative decisions • Proprietary freezing injunctions—key and illustrative decisions (pre-April 2025) [Archived] 6 April 2025 changes The CPR provisions relevant to interim injunctive relief were amended with effect from 6 April 2025. In particular, CPR 25 was revised extensively and the accompanying Practice Directions, together with the example draft orders included in Annex A and Annex

This Practice Note summarises a number of illustrative cases addressing applications for proprietary freezing injunctions dated from April 2025 onwards. It is intended to provide a broad sense of the diverse range of factual scenarios and issues which can arise in respect of such orders. For key and illustrative decisions dated prior to April 2025, see Practice Note: Proprietary freezing injunctions—key and illustrative decisions (pre-April 2025) [Archived]. For comprehensive guidance on the principles to be applied in proprietary freezing injunction cases, see Practice Note: Proprietary freezing injunctions. Note that the CPR provisions relevant to interim injunctive relief, including proprietary and freezing orders, were amended with effect from 6 April 2025. In particular, CPR 25 was revised extensively and the accompanying Practice Directions, together with the example draft orders included in Annex A and Annex B of Practice Direction 25A, were revoked. From 6 April 2025, new model orders entered into force, including a new model order for a freezing injunction and an alternative form of model order which should be used ‘where both a proprietary

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note summarises a number of key and/or illustrative cases relevant to proprietary freezing injunctions (also known as proprietary injunctions and/or proprietary asset preservation injunctions) dated pre-April 2025. It is not maintained and is for background information only. For illustrative decisions from April 2025 onwards, see Practice Note: Proprietary freezing injunctions—illustrative decisions (2025). For comprehensive guidance on the principles to be applied in proprietary freezing injunction cases, see Practice Note: Proprietary freezing injunctions. Case details and analysis Judgment date Case summary Chancery Division (on appeal from the County Court sitting in Cardiff) Khan v Goldfarb [2025] EWHC 874 (Ch) 30 January 2025 This was an unsuccessful appeal from the continuation of a proprietary injunction (obtained without notice) in respect of various properties owned by the appellant and her mother. The injunction had been obtained by the trustee in bankruptcy of the father, some six years after his bankruptcy and was based on sections 339 and 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, ie asserting that

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case considers novel issues concerning the treatment of costs paid under a court order allegedly procured by fraud. The claimant, Mr Taylor, issued an on-notice application for (among other things) a proprietary injunction in respect of (as yet unpaid) costs due under a court order. The application was based on well-established equitable principles; and in particular that when property is obtained by fraud, equity will intervene to impose a constructive trust in favour of the victim of the fraud (Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669 at p 71). The judge did not consider that those equitable principles applied to funds paid pursuant to a court order. On payment, both legal and beneficial ownership would transfer to the recipient—so no constructive trust would arise. In any event, the judge determined that it is not for a litigant who believes they have been defrauded to elect to rescind an order made against them; they must persuade the court that this is what is required. Written by Chris Felton, partner and Katie Dyson, associate at Gardner Leader LLP.

A proprietary interest is a legal right in, over or to specific property, rather than a mere personal right against another person. In practice, it covers rights such as ownership, leases, easements, mortgages, security interests, trusts and other rights capable of binding third parties or surviving insolvency. The term is descriptive rather than usually defined in statute, and its content is developed mainly through case law. In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the concept is rooted in common law and equity and is central to areas such as land law, trusts, secured lending, restitution and insolvency (for example, determining whether a claimant can assert a proprietary claim or must prove as an unsecured creditor). In Scotland, the analogous idea is a “real right” (as opposed to a “personal right”), but Scottish practitioners and courts also use “proprietary interest” as convenient shorthand, particularly in cross‑border or commercial contexts. In Ireland, usage broadly follows England and Wales, with proprietary interests playing a key role in land registration, security, trust and insolvency disputes. Understanding whether a party has a proprietary interest is critical to priority, enforcement and tracing of assets.