Facts
- Joint appeal – two tenants acted in reliance on options to purchase their respective freehold estates by carrying out substantial improvements
Issue
- Could the landlords be estopped from denying the options to purchase?
Decision
- Yes in one case, no in the other
Reasoning
- Where one landlord had encouraged the works, proprietary estoppel operated, even though the options were registrable and should have been registered
- Although the 5 criteria set out in Willmott v Barber (1880) may be relevant in acquiescence (non-active encouragement) cases, generally, it is only required that a landlord acts dishonestly or unconscionably to the detriment of a claimant
- It is not required that a landlord knows that the claimant’s mistaken belief is mistaken
