Crabb v Arun District Council [1976]

1. Facts

• Mr. Crabb (C) intended to split his land into two plots to sell one to a third party.

• To facilitate this, he needed a right of way across the adjacent land.

• Although there was never a formal contract, D constructed a wooden fence on the boundary between the plots.

• A gap was left in the fence, which was arguably in line with a previous verbal agreement.

• D later removed the gate, built a wall over the gap, and sold the land.

• C sought to enforce the right of way based on the verbal agreement and the conduct of D.

2. Outcome

• The court ruled in favour of C, granting him a right of way under the principle of promissory estoppel (PE).

• C’s claim was successful because the promise made by D was deemed binding, despite the lack of a formal contract.

3. Impact and Analysis

• Establishing Promissory Estoppel (PE):

◦ Lord Scarman outlined stages for establishing PE:

▪ Equity Established: Determine if an equity (an obligation or promise) has been created.

▪ Belief in the Right: Assess whether C had a reasonable belief in the existence of the right of way.

▪ Detrimental Reliance: Evaluate whether C acted to his detriment based on the belief in the right of way.

▪ Appropriate Relief: Determine the appropriate remedy to satisfy the established equity.

• Lord Denning’s Approach:

◦ Emphasised that PE can arise from either "words or conduct," reinforcing that informal promises or actions can create binding obligations.

• Binding Promise:

◦ The court found that D’s actions (constructing and later altering the fence) and the conduct of leaving a gap indicated a promise or representation of a right of way.

◦ The removal of the gate and construction of the wall constituted a repudiation of this promise, leading to the enforcement of the right of way.

• Detrimental Reliance:

◦ C’s reliance on the existence of the right of way was deemed reasonable and detrimental, given that he had acted based on the expectation of having this right.

• Relief and Enforcement:

◦ The case reinforced that PE can be used to enforce promises that have led to detrimental reliance, even in the absence of a formal contract. The court’s decision ensured that equitable relief was provided to uphold the expectation created by D’s conduct.