In crab V Arun, lord denning explained the main function of the doctrine of properity esstople” is "to prevent a person

from insisting on his legal right whether arising under contract, or on his title deeds, or by statute when it would be
inequitable for him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties."According to
this doctrine a landowner is prohibited from doing unconscientious revocation of his own representation if other
person relied on it and face detriment.As PE is an equitable doctrine so it is argued that court is allowed to render
Justice in those scenarios where exact obedience to the law could find the way of injustice.if we analyze the Martin
Dixson s book “ Modern land law” he completely supports this school of thought and explained it that this doctrine is
an excellent example of equity intervening to minimize the impacts of failure with common law or statute’s formal
requirements.Elizabeth Darlignton in his article for Zenith Chambers wrote about the doctrine of properity esstople
that this concept can create the cause of action rather than operating as a a defense as decided in the case of
Thorner V Major . From this it could also be concluded that PE itself can be used from both purposes , as a sword
and a defence.
As if there is a successful lawsuit in the area of proprietary estoppel, it directly results in the creation of interest in that
land and will effect the owner , the person who futher purchase that land and the transfer of that land as well , so it
should not be that surprising that why the conditions for a successful lawsuit are much more tightened. These
requirements were stated in the case of Willmott V Barber by Fry Lj which is the one of the most challenging situation
for the claimants . Over the period these requirements has been amended and is tried to give more flexibile and
modern approach to it. According to the case of Oliver J in Taylor Fashions V liverpool , it was decided that a
claimant have to show an assurance, reliance, and loss in that condition where it would be cruel to deny the remedy
for the claimant.
In the case of jenning vs rice It was stated that these four requirements should be considered collectively rather than
separately , On the hand thorner v Majors,courts Confirm that there is a need to take a complete approach while
setting up proprietary estoppel.
To bring a successful claim under this doctrine the landowner himself must have granted some sort of insurance
towards the claimant and In most of the conditions the assurance is based upon some kind of property rights
Although the case of Thorne versus major has proved that This is not necessary. Taking about implied understanding
that whether it will amount to an insurance the Court of Appeal clearly stated that PE could not be Establish since
the insurance need to be based upon a clear commitment. This decision was over ruled by house of lord and lord
Walker Clearly stated that assurance can be evaluated through the context and in result awarded the PE in the favor
of david and granted him the land. If we analyze the case of Ramsden V dyson It was held that representation could
also be through the conduct and even by being silent. The perfect example of insurance can be seen in the case
Gillet V Holt , here Mr Holt said that He himself wanted Geoffrey To run the form which he considered as being
“permanent arrangement”
The claimant must have to prove that they had relied to an assurance that has been given by the owner however that
reliance is difficult To prove but claimant can prove it through the change in conduct. In the case of Greasly V cooke
The Court of Appeals stated that where There is an clear assurance and the claimant has suffered detriment it is
permissible to Believe that the reliance has been occurred. Similar thing happened in the case of Wayling V jones , In
that scenario the Court of Appeal looked for a “sufficient relationship” Between the the assurance that has been made
by the owner and the detriment faced by the claimant. Should be noted that the burden will be on defendant to show
that there was no reliance present. It should be highlighted that there will be no reliance where it could be
demonstrated that claimant will receive detriment irrespective of defendants the promise or behavior as seen in the
case of orgee v orgee. However if we analyze the cases such as Campbell versus Griffin it was said that either a
detriment which is not directly caused through the conduct of the defendant, it could also be considered as a reliance.
So it could be said that the determination Of the presence of reliance may vary .
The doctrine of PE Will not apply in a scenario in which the The claimant cannot demonstrate the detriment that he
has suffered in result of relying on the assurance. This can be in in any form but cant be it is minimum or trivial. The
the best example of detriment is to work for low wage or no which as can be demonstrated in the case of Gillette
versus holt. As we have seen the cases of Campbell versus Griffin and jenning versus rice that is not really important
that the detriment faced by the claimant would be related to land as there is an Detrimental reliance Which could
make retardation of assurance unjustifiable. If we shed the light on Jennings vs Rice , CoA stated that proportionality
is an important factor Between the expectations and the detriment in order to determined which is purly based up one
PE. It is important to note that detriment itself is not sufficient as seen in the case of Taylor versus Dickens. If we
shed the light towards the here the plaintiff worked for years without any pay with an exception that he will inherent
from deceased However the plaintiff changed her mind and left it to another in this scenario the plaintiff was unable to
use the doctrine of propriety stopper because there was no guarantee even though there was a detriment From this
scenario it may seem hard harsh that unincorporated detriment is not sufficient in th However in the case of Lloyd's
this issue was addressed by stating that the detriment should be born By that person from whom the assurance has
been made.
If we examine the theory of PE , It has grown its relevance because of changes in social and economical Changes
and the stricter enforcement of formality norms under the Section 2 of property law act 1989. As it was addressed in
the case of Cobbe Vs Yeoman by Lord scott , The absence of a reference in the doctrine of estoppel in LPMPA Has
caused much more difficulties. Here it was question that how could a property interest would Declare an agreement
valid that is considered void in section 2 of LPMPA Because of failure to follow the formalities However on the other
side felt unnecessary to answer that Kirsten and stated “equality can never contradict statute”.
Oliver J ‘S School of thought considered unconscionability As one of the most important of doctrine of property
stoppable that can also be witnessed by the number of case laws listed. Unconscionability Relaxes the cold to follow
strict formality requirements that has been set out by the statuteAllow the codes the claimant to be successful in
those claims where revoking assurance would be unconscionably.Aldous In jennings v Rice Clearly stated that there
is no dispute that the reliance and detriment are the two main element of PE And the foundation of estoppel is“The
interposition of equity ; Thus the requirement of unconscionability”. It is Still claimed that Even though
unconscionability Is important because the equitable Right involved in it but it alone may not Necessarily result in a
remedy. This school of thought is also supported by nigel Gravelle in his book where he discussed that
“unconscionability alone, Without detrimental alliance on a representation, is insufficient in itself to found a Propriety
estoppel claim. From this point of view resulted that unconscionability of alone conduct will not lead towards a
remedy, the claimant have to show some assurance that he had relied on that that lead towards the detriment.
If we see the case of thorner his claim was successful Unlike cobbe.According to the point of view of Lord Walker he
believed that certainty is a really important element in the property transactions.if we analyze the difference between
the two cases Cobbe was In commercial setting while Thorner Was purely a case of domestic one-due to that
Propriety estoppel was successful in that scenario.In the case of cobbe and thorner,House of Lorddemonstrated the
fact that the main purpose of estoppel is not for the remedy of unconscious-conduct But to-deal with the assurance
about the land, Reliance And deteriment ,Where withdrawing the insurance would be unconscionable.
Now it is really important to-know that this doctrine is not a remedy for all the formality flawsif it was so there would be
no need for the for formality norms.There are also some arguments that this doctrine has weakened-the formalities-
which were present in the statute and due to this courts have exceeded from their authorities Which against the
doctrine of separation of power.However this argument was rejected by Lords Scott by stating that proprietary
estopple Can never enforce an agreement that-statute has declared as void statute has declared as void and further
stated ”Equality can certainly not contradict statute”.However in this scenario Dixon also rejected this argument.This
clearly demonstrated that this doctrineis absolutely proportionate and could be applicable in specific scenarios- which
involve the statutory provision
here it is important to note that the courts have authority to grant performance of expectations or recope reliance
losses as there are some debate over it. The claimants expectation isis set as the maximum limit and the reliance
loss is decided as the minimum limit by the court which clearly showed that the The court to have flexiable
compromise.As stated in the case of Gillet versus holt The exact remedy could varydepending upon the Whether the
claimants equity is satisfied or not
It is really beneficial to separate this doctrine from the doctrine of constructive trust the fact that both of the doctrine
Need detriment and work-on that basesthat it could be unconscionable For the paper owner to reject the existence of
beneficial interest.Robert Walkertry to identify the similarities between both of these doctrine as he-stated that both of
them rely on equity to grant the relief.
To summarise the topic it is always believed that theories are not-that constant in terms of flexibility proportionality
and fairness.however this area of law has been quite dynamic and is evolving over the period of time-as reference to
the case laws described above it is quite clear that this theory is-very flexible balanced and fair in situation to provide
the justice.