Clear as mud: Proprietary Estoppel after Guest v Guest

Claire-Michelle Smyth, Rupert Dunbar
{"title":"Clear as mud: Proprietary Estoppel after Guest v Guest","authors":"Claire-Michelle Smyth, Rupert Dunbar","doi":"10.1093/tandt/ttae016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The dust should now have settled since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Guest v Guest (2022). However, in exploring recent case law, this article exposes that the rules applied to decide proprietary estoppel cases remain as uncertain as ever. Some commonality can be identified, but only in the persistent favouring of promisors over promisees. This article criticises the practical and theoretical underpinnings of proprietary estoppel and proposes further reform. In particular, the article draws new links from the doctrine of secret trusts to suggest a more just and certain basis for proprietary estoppel’s future application","PeriodicalId":171463,"journal":{"name":"Trusts & Trustees","volume":"66 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trusts & Trustees","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttae016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The dust should now have settled since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Guest v Guest (2022). However, in exploring recent case law, this article exposes that the rules applied to decide proprietary estoppel cases remain as uncertain as ever. Some commonality can be identified, but only in the persistent favouring of promisors over promisees. This article criticises the practical and theoretical underpinnings of proprietary estoppel and proposes further reform. In particular, the article draws new links from the doctrine of secret trusts to suggest a more just and certain basis for proprietary estoppel’s future application
一目了然:宾客诉宾客案之后的专有禁止反言
自最高法院在 Guest v Guest 案(2022 年)中做出具有里程碑意义的判决以来,尘埃应该已经落定。然而,本文在探讨最近的判例法时发现,适用于裁定所有权禁止反言案件的规则仍然像以往一样不确定。我们可以发现一些共同点,但这些共同点仅仅体现在允诺人始终优于被允诺人。本文批评了所有权不容反悔的实践和理论基础,并提出了进一步改革的建议。特别是,文章从秘密信托理论中汲取了新的联系,为所有权不容反悔原则未来的应用提出了一个更加公正和确定的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信