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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal