Crabb v Arun DC 
Crabb v Arun District Council 
- The claimant was assured that his local council would build a right of way to his land, such that the land could be partitioned and sold off separately without leaving one part of the land landlocked
- To confirm their intentions, the council built a fence with a gap for the assured right of way
- The claimant relied on this assurance to sell of part of his land, leaving his own landlocked
- The council then filled in the gap, and demanded £3000 for a right of way to be built
- Could the council be estopped from refusing to build the right of way?
- Any sum that could reasonably have been demanded for the cost of construction was set-off against the detriment suffered by the claimant; the net cost being £0, with the Council being required to construct the right of way
- Where a proprietary estoppel claim is established, a court will assess the extent of the equity created and how best to satisfy it
Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.
This page was last updated on 25th April 2015