Crabb v Arun District Council
Where a landowner encouraged a neighbour to believe he would be given a right of access, and the neighbour acted on it, equity granted the right without payment.
Facts
Mr Crabb owned land next to a road owned by Arun District Council. At a meeting, the council's representatives agreed in principle that Mr Crabb would have a right of access to the road at a particular point, and the council put up gateposts and a gate there. Relying on this, Mr Crabb sold part of his land, without reserving any right of way over the part sold, so that the remaining land could only be reached through the council's road. The council then removed the gate and fenced the gap, leaving Mr Crabb's land landlocked, and demanded a large payment for access.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the council was estopped from denying Mr Crabb's right of access, and granted him an easement over the road, without payment. Lord Denning MR said that the basis of proprietary estoppel is that equity will prevent a person from insisting on his strict legal rights when it would be inequitable for him to do so, having regard to the dealings between the parties. Scarman LJ said that the court must determine what is the minimum equity to do justice to the claimant. Because Mr Crabb had been left without access for several years, the court did not require him to pay for the right.
Related cases on contracts for land and proprietary estoppel
- Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 WLR 1752
- Davies v Davies [2016] EWCA Civ 463
- Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862) 4 De GF & J 517
- Firstpost Homes Ltd v Johnson [1995] 1 WLR 1567
- Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210
- Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27
- Habberfield v Habberfield [2019] EWCA Civ 890
- Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 29
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
