header-logo header-logo

28 May 2021 / Caroline Shea KC , Thomas Rothwell
Issue: 7934 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Proprietary estoppel: Howe v Gossop

49952
Caroline Shea QC & Thomas Rothwell examine the history & relationship between proprietary estoppel & a section 2 defence
  • Howe v Gossop: useful insight on the circumstances in which s 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 will (or will not) amount to a defence to a proprietary estoppel.

Ever since the important decision of the House of Lords in Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55, [2008] 4 All ER 713, there has been considerable debate about the interrelationship between s 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (s 2) and the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. The former provision declares any contract for the sale or disposition of an interest in land which is not in signed writing to be void. A party seeking to establish an estoppel, however, will often seek to rely on unwritten promises or agreements as the central basis of his cause of action. The recent decision of Mr Justice Snowden in

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll