Land registration and proprietary estoppel

• Author: Simon Cooper
• Position: Of the Cayman Islands Law School
• Pages: 478-500

LAND REGIST RA TION AN D PR OP RIETA RY ES TO PPEL

Simo n Cooper*

The law o f the Cayman Islands recogn ises equitable estoppe l,

oth erw ise known as proprietary estoppel, as both a defence and a

cause of action in claim s relating to land. But the p recise imp act of

a proprietary es topp el claim on subsequent purchasers o f the lan d is

an issue on which there is little clear guidance in the Caym an I slands

or Englan d. This article identifies and explores some o f the issue s

wh ich a re raised for third parties who acqu ire the land to wh ich the

esto ppe l claim relates. The matters consid ered are also relevan t to

those other Caribbean jurisdic tions which have legislation derived

from the K eny an Registe red Land Ac t 1963.

Pro prieta ry Status o f the Inchoate Estop pel Equity

Proprietary estoppel arises through representation or acquiescence.

Wh en an ow ner o f land wh o makes a repre sentatio n th at a claim ant

has, or will acquire, rights in the land, and the claimant in reliance on

that representation acts to his detriment, an “equity” arises in favour

of the claimant w hich w ill be vindic ated by the court as it sees fit in

its discretion. Such a “representation” may take the form of either an

exp res s promise by the owner, or the ow ne r’s tacit acquiescence in

the claiman t’s detrim ental reliance. Although the two manifestations

of proprietary estoppel are based on the same underlying princ iple o f

Of the Cayman Islands Law School. I am indebted to Mr. C. Buchanan, Director of

the Lands and Survey Department and Registrar of Lands, who provided helpful

comments on an earlier draft.

478

Land Registration and Proprie tary Estoppel 479

preventing the ow ne r’s unconscionable cond uct in attempting to deny

his earlier representation, it seems th at the two fo rms retain a certain

sepa rate identity .1

The equity tha t is generated by the estoppel is an inchoate claim to

the exe rci se o f the cou rt’s discretion, and thus can not easily be

cate gor ised into on e of the establis hed interests in land, or other

recogn ise d pe rsonal or p rop rietary right, until the court makes its

declaration as to the appropriate remedy. It is therefore necessary to

sum marise the possib le views a s to the statu s o f the claim .

No n-P ro prieta ry Status

Ce rta in d icta o f the Eng lish courts propo se that an equity is not

cap able o f enf orcement against pu rchasers o f the land to which the

claim relates, th e cases supporting this proposition including National

Pro vincial Bank Ltd v Ain sw orth} In this case th e e quity in question

was the right o f a wife to occ upation o f the matrim onial hom e, which

was held to be purely perso nal, exercisable on ly against th e husban d.

It is subm itte d that th e decision can be distinguis hed from estoppe l

claims on the ground that a wi fe’s equ ity to occu py bears little

relatio n to the equ ity aris ing from prop rietary estoppel: the w ife’s

equ ity is nev er m ore than a me rely personal claim agains t th e

husband, deri vin g solely from her marital status, and unlike an

estoppel equ ity it d oes n ot represent an e mbryon ic claim to a

pro prietary inter est in spec ific property. Lord Upjohn said that a

Ta ylors Fas hion s Lt d v Li verp ool Victo ria Tr uste es Co Ltd [ 1981 ] 2 W.L.R.576.

Na tiona l Prov incia l Ba nk Lt d v Ains wo rth [1965] A.C.1175, [1965] 2 All E.R.472.