Cherrington v Hoare

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Malone, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 30 March 1977
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 110/76
• Date: 30 March 1977

Supreme Court

Malone, C.J.

Civil Action No. 110/76

Cherrington

and

Hoare

Appearances:

Mr. D.O. Barrow for the plaintiff.

Mr. L.R. Balderamos for the defendant.

Before the Hon. D.E.G. Malone, Chief Justice.

Estoppel - Equitable estoppel — License

Facts: Father granted defendant son permission to occupy building on father's land — Father later sold land — Defendant served with notice to quit and order for possession — Whether condition imposed on defendant that he must learn to command respect was sufficient to raise an estoppel in his favour — Whether interest of defendant was equivalent to that of a license coupled with an equity

Held: No question of an estoppel arose where the defendant's father retained the right to expel the defendant from the land if he so wished — Order for possession granted.

1 On the 18th of September, 1972, the plaintiff purchased lot No. 1294 on Kelly Street, Belize City, from the defendant's father one Albert Hoare, who was the registered proprietor of the said lot by virtue of a First Certificate of Title dated the 7th day of December, 1957 and registered in the Land Titles Register, volume 4 at folio 1038. On that lot there are and were at the time of the purchase two houses. The larger, belonged to Albert Hoare and was sold with the lot to the plaintiff, but the smaller, which then was and still is occupied by the defendant, was expressly excluded from the sale of the lot. The plaintiff's action is for the recovery of possession of that portion of lot 1294 occupied, it is alleged, by the defendant as a tenant at will of the plaintiff under a tenancy duly determined by three months notice to quit dated the 16th day of April, 1973. The defendant by his defence denies that the plaintiff is entitled to that portion of lot 1294 on which his house is situate and in the alternative pleads that the plaintiff is estopped from saying he is entitled to the said portion which measures approximately 22' x 25. In paragraph 5 of the defence the following facts are set out as the basis of the plea of estoppel:

• “(1) In the year 1967, the defendant expecting to be allowed to remain in occupation of the said portion of land for life, was encouraged by his father Albert Hoare, the owner, to build a house on the said portion of land.

• (2) The defendant, so encouraged, took possession of the said portion of land, built a house on it at a cost of some $2,600.00 with the knowledge of his father and with no objections from him.

• (3) He has since occupied the said portion of land rent-free and has paid the taxes thereon.

• (4) The defendant had no notice to quit from Albert Hoare.”

2 Having regard to the facts alleged as the basis of the estoppel plea, the estoppel pleaded and advanced in argument by counsel for the defendant is that form of equitable estoppel known as “proprietary estoppel.” In Snell's “Principles of Equity” 27th Ed., the attributes of that form of equitable estoppel are described at p. 565 as follows:

“Proprietary estoppel is one of the qualifications to the general rule that a person who spends money on improving the property of another has no claim to reimbursement or to any proprietary interest in the property ……. It is permanent in its effect, and it s also capable of operating positively so as to confer a right of action. The term “estoppel”, though often used, is thus not altogether appropriate. It may well be that the equity is based on an estoppel, but it seems in essence to confer a substantive equitable right of property which is not registrable as a land charge.”

3 In this case, the conception, as it were, of the substantive equitable right of property came about, the defendant claims, when he having written to his father Albert Hoare, who then resided in Guatemala, to inform him that he had married received in reply a letter of the 3rd March, 1967. In that letter from Albert Hoare are the following passages:

“Congratulations to you and Mrs. Richard Hoare. I cannot express my feelings of gladness in receiving your letter and learn you have got married. It made me happy for now I am trusting that you may make yourself a better man for we cannot tell what the future holds for us. So we must be prepared for the unseen ……….

Contents of letter were carefully notice and with the greatest of pleasure you have my permission to do as you wish in fixing the small house but on condition you must learn to command respect that they may respect you and your family ……….

You can show this to Albert that I give you authority to have access to the house. I and him have spoken over the property but it ended up as a wash out for no decision was made. So you go ahead and do your best.”

4 The Albert referred to in that letter is the defendant's older brother who at the time lived in the larger of the two houses now on lot 1294. The defendant then occupied what is now the smaller the two houses on lot 1294 and which then was smaller than it now is and in dilapidated condition because of damage sustained in the hurricane of 1961.

5 Acting, the defendant claims, on the authorisations given by the letter of the 3rd March, 1967, that he was to have access to the house and that he could fix it up as he wished, and because he considered that his father had by the letter of the 3rd March, 1967 given to him a licence to reside on the land for his life or as long as he pleased, he pulled down the existing building and at a cost to himself of $2,600.00 erected a new building of 15' x 20'. He adds that he later wrote to his father informing him of what he had done and that his...