Proprietary estoppel meaning

Testamentary capacity Oliver v Oliver [2024] EWHC 2289 (Ch) – News Analysis: Will overturned for want of testamentary capacity and undue influence (Oliver v Oliver). This judgment is an uncommon instance of a successful attack on a professionally drafted Will for both incapacity and coercion, even where the court had a recording of the testator’s instructions and the GP had issued a supporting certificate. Despite those formalities, the court concluded the Will should be set aside on both grounds. Alexandra Rogers, managing associate at Foot Anstey LLP. Leonard v Leonard (by her litigation friend Sharon Thompsett) [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch) – News Analysis: High Court offers guidance on the test for testamentary capacity (Leonard v Leonard). The High Court examines and clarifies Banks v Goodfellow, and underscores the continuing importance of expert evidence in capacity disputes. It underscores how clinical and legal evaluations interact closely, effectively. George Vare, barrister at Serle Court Chambers. Wilkinson v Hicken [2023] EWHC 1983 (Ch) – News Analysis: Personality disorders...

In this issue: Wills Probate Trusts UK taxes for Private Client HMRC Manuals updates Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Contentious trusts and estates Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland International Question of the week Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Private Client: a Lexis+® community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&As Useful information Wills No line of sight—due execution and presence In the Estate of Kathleen Coady, District Judge Chloë Phillips delivered judgment in Coady v Coady PT-2023-BHM-000025 (Business & Property Courts in Birmingham (Probate)), addressing as a preliminary question whether a coronavirus (COVID-19) era ‘garden signing’ met section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. The court concluded it did not, rendering the 25 April 2020 Will invalid. Written by Charlotte John of Gatehouse Chambers. See News Analysis: No line of sight—due execution and presence In the Estate of Kathleen Coady. Probate...

In this issue: Probate Court of Protection UK taxes for Private Client HMRC Manuals updates Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Insolvency—Private Client Digital assets and cryptoassets Charity and philanthropy Contentious trusts and estates Pensions, insurance and tax efficient investments International Question of the week Additional Private Client updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Private Client: a Lexis®PSL community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&As Useful information Probate HMCTS probate enquiry line—temporary reduced hours From 14 February 2024, and for 12 weeks, the HMCTS probate helpline will run on reduced hours: 9am to 1pm, Monday to Friday. The HMCTS Probate Service remains available via web‑chat from 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday. Source: HMCTS Probate LinkedIn post. MoJ urges those entitled to claim dormant funds held by CFO to act now The Ministry of Justice...

In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Transferring property Property management Residential property Property development Property taxes Property in Scotland LexTalk®Property: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New Q&A Key developments and horizon scanning Renters’ Rights Act 2025 As previously reported, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (RRA 2025) secured Royal Assent on 27 October. A small number of procedural measures took effect on 27 October 2025, while the remainder will commence by regulations on dates yet to be appointed. See: LNB News 04/11/2025 7. The Law Society has welcomed the RRA 2025, but emphasises that its success depends on government investment in the courts so they can manage the anticipated increase in contested hearings. See: LNB News 29/10/2025 34. Source: Renters’ Rights Act levels the playing field for tenants and landlords. Transferring property Proprietary estoppel — beneficial interest not established...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

This Practice Note explains what proprietary estoppel is, how to advance a plea of proprietary estoppel, and gives examples of when, in practice, you may wish to rely on it. It examines proprietary estoppel from a general perspective. For sector-specific guidance on proprietary estoppel for property law practitioners, see Practice Note: for property disputes lawyers. —what is it? Unlike other species of estoppel (see Practice Note: Estoppel—what, when and how to plead), which will not usually found a cause of action, proprietary estoppel can. It is commonly deployed where a party (B) seeks to assert a proprietary right in land owned by another (A), where B has been led to believe—by promise, words or conduct and/or by A’s acquiescence—that B has, or can expect to acquire, an interest in that land. The decisions in Ramsden v Dyson and Willmott v Barber offer a helpful starting point for understanding the doctrine. In both, the claimant sought to establish a proprietary interest in someone else’s property on the footing that...

The section 2 requirements in the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A 1989) are disapplied for certain contracts and trusts. This Practice Note identifies those categories and outlines how the exceptions take effect. Excepted contracts The contractual formalities set out in LP(MP)A 1989, s 2 do not apply to contracts: for leases not exceeding three years (ie short leases under Law of Property Act 1925, s 54) made in the course of a public auction regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (other than a regulated mortgage contract, regulated home reversion plan, regulated purchase plan or a regulated sale and rent back agreement) Constructive trusts The statutory formalities in LP(MP)A 1989, s 2 do not affect the creation or operation of resulting, implied or constructive trusts. No written evidence is required. A constructive trust arises in relation to legal title where a party’s conduct makes it unconscionable to allow them to deny the other party...

The Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) introduced a new framework for the law of adverse possession in relation to registered land, as provided by LRA 2002, Sch 6. The revised regime offers greater protection for landowners whenever a claim for adverse possession of land is brought. Simply having adverse possession for a period exceeding twelve years no longer means the land will have been acquired by the adverse possessor. Rather, following a continuous period of ten years’ adverse possession, the squatter may apply to be registered as proprietor of that land under the scheme, as set out therein...