Pawlowski, Mark ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5473-5809 (2026) Unconscionability and the claimant's conduct in proprietary estoppel. Solicitors Journal, 169 (7). pp. 25-27. ISSN 0038-1047

Preview

PDF (Author's Accepted Manuscript) 53991 PAWLOWSKI_Unconscionability_And_The_Claimant's_Conduct_In_Proprietary_Estoppel_(AAM)_2026.pdf - Accepted Version Download (236kB) | Preview

Abstract

it is evident from the Court of Appeal ruling in Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210 that unconscionability is the overarching element operating in proprietary estoppel claims. The term has been defined judicially as meaning an objective value judgment on behaviour and refers to the court’s broad equitable jurisdiction to either deny a remedy or modify it given all the circumstances of the case. This, in turn, suggests that the claimant’s rights in equity do not necessarily crystallise forever at the time when the equitable right comes into existence. Indeed, subsequent events occurring after the relevant assurance is made may have an important influence on how the claimant’s equity may be satisfied (if at all) at the hearing of the claim. This article focuses, in particular, on the extent to which the claimant’s behaviour towards the legal owner may influence the court in determining equitable relief.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	proprietary estoppel, estoppel claimant, misconduct, unconscionability, misrepresentation, oppression, qualified assurances, non-compliance with condition, equitable relief, denial or modification of remedy
Subjects:	K Law > K Law (General) K Law > KD England and Wales
Faculty / School / Research Centre / Research Group:	Faculty of Law, Arts and Social Sciences Faculty of Law, Arts and Social Sciences > School of Law and Criminology
Last Modified:	03 Aug 2026 13:17
URI:	https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/53991

Actions (login required)

View Item

Downloads