Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL: TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN?
Blue Haven Enterprises v. Tully
The relationship between estoppel by acquiescence in equity and the law of unjust enrichment is controversial. According to Goff & Jones1
and Birks,2
estoppel by acquiescence is one of the pillars supporting the principle of free acceptance. Even Burrows,3
who strongly condemns the role of free acceptance in the law of unjust enrichment, concedes that half of the doctrine is concerned with unjust enrichment. Garner, however, takes the view that the estoppel cases have nothing to do with unjust enrichment.4
The courts have been more reticent so far as the relationship between the two is concerned. In Sledmore
v. Dalby
,5
Hobhouse LJ suggested that unjust enrichment is often present in cases of proprietary estoppel, though his Lordship did not elaborate on its role, as he acknowledged the roles of the traditional elements of representation, reliance and detriment. Blue Haven Enterprises Ltd
v. Tully
6
takes the debate further, by insisting that the elements of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel be satisfied before a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment can succeed, though the circumstances under which the decision was reached lessen its authoritative value.
Mrs Tully was the executrix of the deceased owners of an estate in the Blue Mountains region of Jamaica. The estate comprised about 95 acres of land. In 1985, Mrs Tully contracted to sell the estate for $260,000 to Mr Robinson, who wanted to develop it as a coffee plantation. The contract incorrectly described the estate as comprising 130 acres of
1. GH Jones (ed), Goff & Jones on The Law of Restitution
, 6th edn (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2002) (hereafter “Goff & Jones
”), paras 1.012, 6.002–6.006.
2. P Birks, An Introduction to the Law of Restitution
, revised edn (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989) (hereafter “Birks, Introduction
”) 277–279.
3. A Burrows, “Free Acceptance and the Law of Restitution” (1988) 104 LQR 576, 584.
4. M Garner, “The Role of Subjective Benefit in the Law of Unjust Enrichment” [1990] OJLS 42, 45–52.
5. (1996) 72 P & CR 196, 208.
6. [2006] UKPC 17.
CASE AND COMMENT
15