{"title":"一目了然:宾客诉宾客案之后的专有禁止反言","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Clear as mud: Proprietary Estoppel after Guest v Guest
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