Kinane v Mackie-Conteh
Where a person relied on a void oral agreement to grant security over land, the agreement could be enforced through a constructive trust arising from proprietary estoppel.
Facts
Mr Mackie-Conteh borrowed money from Mr Kinane and agreed to give security over his property for the loan. A document was signed by Mr Mackie-Conteh, but not by Mr Kinane, so it did not satisfy section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. Mr Kinane advanced the money in reliance on the promised security. When the loan was not repaid, Mr Kinane sought to enforce the security.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Kinane was entitled to enforce the security. Arden LJ said that, where proprietary estoppel arises from facts that also give rise to a constructive trust, section 2(5) of the 1989 Act allows the agreement to be enforced, applying Yaxley v Gotts. The cause of action was not the void agreement itself, but the defendant's unconscionable conduct in allowing the claimant to rely on an expectation that he would receive security over the property.
Related cases on contracts for land and proprietary estoppel
- Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 WLR 1752
- Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179
- 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
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.
