Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179
Facts
Crabb owned land adjoining the council's land. He already had access to a road from the northern portion but intended to sell the property in separate lots. Discussions and the council's installation of a gap or gate led him to expect a second access for the southern portion. Relying on that expectation, he sold the northern land without reserving another route for the retained plot. The council subsequently blocked the southern access and demanded payment before reopening it. Crabb sought a right of access founded on the assurance and his reliance.
Legal Issue
Did the council’s assurance and Crabb’s sale in reliance establish proprietary estoppel, and what terms should govern the resulting access right?
Held
The Court of Appeal held that Crabb had established an equity arising from the council's assurance and conduct. He had relied on the proposed southern access when selling the northern portion without reserving another route. The council could not then insist on withdrawing that access as though its earlier encouragement had no legal consequence.
The remedy had to satisfy the equity in the circumstances. The prolonged obstruction had effectively sterilised the retained land and caused loss. The court therefore granted access without requiring the additional payment which the council sought. That remedial conclusion depended on the particular history and detriment. It did not establish that every assurance about land must be enforced on precisely the promised terms without regard to proportionality or other equitable considerations.
⭐ Legal Principle
An assurance concerning rights over land, reasonably relied upon to the claimant's detriment, may generate proprietary estoppel where withdrawal would be unconscionable. The court then determines relief sufficient to satisfy the equity. Establishing the equity and selecting its remedy are related but distinct stages.
Significance
Crabb illustrates reliance which changes the claimant's practical position: selling land without alternative access made the retained plot dependent on the promised route. It is therefore more than a case of disappointed expectation. The decision also demonstrates remedial flexibility, since the council's obstruction influenced whether payment should be required. Study it with modern proprietary estoppel authorities rather than importing Combe's restriction on promissory estoppel as though all estoppels had the same scope or remedies.
Common exam questions about this case
What was Crabb’s relevant detrimental reliance?
He sold the northern part of his land without retaining alternative access for the southern plot. That decision was made on the basis of the council's assurance and conduct concerning the new route. His remaining land was then practically dependent on the access the council later obstructed.
Why was access granted without the council’s requested payment?
The remedy reflected the full history, including the prolonged obstruction and resulting sterilisation of the land. The court considered that history when deciding how to satisfy the equity. It did not announce that every claimant establishing an assurance is automatically entitled to the exact promised right without conditions.
Why does Combe not prevent Crabb’s claim?
Crabb concerns proprietary estoppel, involving an assurance of rights over land and detrimental reliance. Combe addresses promissory estoppel as an independent cause of action on an unsupported promise. The doctrines have different functions; applying a slogan from one without recognising the proprietary context would obscure the legal basis of relief.