Yaxley v Gotts
An oral agreement for an interest in land that is void under section 2 of the 1989 Act may still be enforced through a constructive trust or proprietary estoppel.
Facts
Mr Yaxley, a builder, orally agreed with Mr Brownie Gotts that, if Mr Gotts bought a particular house, Mr Yaxley would convert it into flats and act as managing agent, and in return would receive the ground floor flat. In fact the house was bought by Mr Gotts's son, Alan Gotts. Mr Yaxley did the building work and managed the flats for some years, but the Gotts then refused to grant him the ground floor flat. The agreement was not in writing, so it was void under section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Yaxley was entitled to a long lease of the ground floor flat. Robert Walker LJ said that section 2 did not prevent the court from giving effect to a proprietary estoppel, where the facts also gave rise to a constructive trust, because section 2(5) expressly preserves the creation or operation of resulting, implied or constructive trusts. The shared understanding between the parties, relied on by Mr Yaxley to his detriment, gave rise to a constructive trust, and the estoppel and the constructive trust overlapped on these facts.
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.
