Equity presentation script

Assalamualaikum and a very good morning to Dr Siti Norafizah and my fellow classmates. I
am Nur Husna. Today, me & my groupmates; Aliya and Robiatul will be presenting the case
of Inwards & Ors v Baker.

The issue that was raised in this case was whether an equitable estoppel can be applied to
prohibit the trustees to possess the land. Next, Aliya will continue with the facts of the case
and the arguments raised by plaintiff.

From the facts and decision mentioned by Aliya and Robiatul, this case involved proprietary
estoppel under equitable estoppel. A proprietary estoppel is when one party, with his
knowledge, encourages another party to act to his detriment in the belief that he has or will
have some property rights or interest against the first party. So this type of estoppel
operates in respect of rights to occupy lands or buildings. The foundation of the doctrine
was mentioned by the former Chief Justice, Tun Salleh Abas in the case of Paruvathy v
Krishnan where he held that “the foundation for the doctrine of proprietary estoppel is
described as the protection of a person who has expended money because of his reliance
upon the encouragement by the other.”

So, based on the foundation set by the judge, there are 4 requirements to fulfil in order to
succeed in proprietary estoppel claims. The first requirement is encouragement whereby
there must be an encouragement made by owner of land that give affect to the belief of the
other party that they will gain some kind of property rights on the owner’s land. This can be
seen from the fact where Mr Baker encouraged the son to build a bungalow on his land
instead of purchasing the land he was eyeing for.

The next requirement is expectation where there must be an expectation given by owner to
the other party and they have acted in belief of an expectation that they will either own or
obtain a sufficient interest in the property to justify expenditure. Expectation was given by
Mr Baker to his son that he may live in the house built on his land as Jack Baker has been
living there for 34 years and Mr Baker would only visit from time to time not showing signs
he has intention to ask Jack Baker to move out.

The third requirement is the other party must have incurred expenditure due to the owner’s
encouragement and expectation. John Baker had incurred expenses to build the house and
even provided labour works. There were some payments made by Mr Baker but it was paid
back by John Baker in which the expenses to build the house was paid more by John Baker.

The last requirement is added by case law where it requires that there must be no bar to the
equity such as contravention of any statute. For example, in the case of Holee Holdings Sdn
Bhd v Chai Him where one of the issues raised was whether defendants could invoke
proprietary estoppel against plaintiff. The current law now is that a successor in title is not
bound by the equities of the occupiers of land under the previous land owner unless the
occupiers have protected their equitable interest by lodging a caveat. Equitable estopple
cannot underwrite a proprietary system like the Torrens system of registration of titles and
interest in land.

That is all from our group. Thank you.