Mark Pawlowski examines a recent case on the inter-relationship between proprietary estoppel & statute
- The recent High Court decision in Thandi v Saggu has highlighted again the complex inter-relationship between proprietary estoppel and the requirements of writing contained in s 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 in the context of informal land transactions.
Conflicting views
In Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 1752, Lord Scott intimated (obiter) that a complete agreement (ie certain as to its terms) for the acquisition of an interest in land, which did not comply with the prescribed formalities contained in s 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A 1989), could not be saved via the application of proprietary estoppel.
Although s 2(5) expressly makes exception for ‘resulting, implied or constructive trusts’, it significantly makes no reference at all to proprietary estoppel. In the words of Lord Scott, at [29]: ‘My present view . . . is that proprietary estoppel cannot be
