Crabb v Arun DC [1976] Ch 179 (CA)

Facts

• Mr. Crabb owned a plot of land divided into two by a road owned by Arun District Council.
• Crabb sought access to the road to ensure both parts of his property could be used.
• The council initially indicated that they would grant him a right of way.
• Relying on that indication, Crabb sold the front portion of his land, leaving the remainder potentially landlocked.
• The council subsequently refused to formalize the right of way, thereby rendering the remaining land inaccessible.
• Crabb claimed that the council’s assurances created a binding obligation for the easement, invoking proprietary estoppel.

Issues

1. Whether Arun District Council’s assurances and conduct created a right of way for Mr. Crabb over its land by proprietary estoppel.
2. Whether Crabb’s reliance on the council’s assurances and the detriment suffered sufficed to make it inequitable for the council to deny the right of way.
3. Whether proprietary estoppel could be invoked to create enforceable rights absent a formal written agreement.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal held that Arun District Council’s assurances and conduct amounted to a representation sufficient to found proprietary estoppel.
• The court found that Mr. Crabb had reasonably relied on the council's conduct by selling part of his property, leading to clear detriment in the form of landlocked land.
• It was considered unconscionable for the council to deny the right of way after encouraging Crabb’s reliance.
• Mr. Crabb was granted an easement by estoppel, enforcing his right of way across the council’s land despite the absence of a formal written contract.
• The judgment confirmed that equity could override statutory or formal legal requirements in such circumstances.

Legal Principles

• Proprietary estoppel prevents a party from denying rights where there has been an assurance, reasonable reliance, and resulting detriment.
• A clear assurance by a landowner, even if informal or implied, can form the basis for proprietary estoppel if the claimant acts to their detriment.
• Detriment includes actions such as property sales or any irreversible step taken in reliance on the assurance.
• The doctrine functions to prevent unconscionable conduct and to ensure fairness, potentially overriding formalities where justice requires.
• The judgment reaffirmed that equitable principles can create and enforce property rights even without a written agreement.

Conclusion

Crabb v Arun DC established that proprietary estoppel may grant an enforceable right of way when a party reasonably relies on a landowner's assurance to their detriment, even in the absence of a formal agreement, thus confirming the importance of equity in property disputes.