Sukhninder Panesar covers recent developments affecting proprietary estoppel, including a son’s claim to the farm he was promised
- Explains that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel is not affected by the Law of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1989.
- Covers the case of Spencer v Spencer & Ors, concerning a son’s claim to the family farm.
In a recent decision of the High Court in Michael John Spencer v Estate of John Mitchell Spencer (Deceased), Penelope Anne Spencer, Jane Mary Flower [2023] EWHC 2050 (Ch), [2023] All ER (D) 66 (Aug) the court was asked whether an informal right in law could be established using the doctrine of proprietary estoppel thereby bypassing the need to comply with writing. This article explores the decision in this case and explains that the jurisprudence of the High Court is cementing into the common law of England and Wales a firmly established principle that the equitable doctrine of proprietary estoppel is not affected by s 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. Section 2(1) prevents the informal creation of rights in
