Cobbe revisted and clarified

Yeoman's Row Management Ltd and another v Cobbe [2008] UKHL 55 concerned a land owner and a developer.  In the absence of any contractual agreement, the latter undertook work in obtaining planning consents on the land owned by the former, on the understanding that, if successful, the owner would sell the land for consideration represented by an upfront payment and site fines.  The developer was successful in obtaining the consents and the land owner then sought to increase the upfront sale price.  The developer sought a remedy of proprietary estoppel (i.e., beneficial ownership of the land) and failed, but was successful with the alternative common law claim to be remunerated for his efforts by a quantum meruit.

Cobbe has caused much subsequent discussion over the extent to which the doctrine of proprietary estoppel had been curtailed, or whether it had even been extinguished.

In Thorner v Majors and others [2009] UKHL 18, the Lords have now taken the opportunity to clarify helpfully the decision in Cobbe, and to confirm that Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210 remains good law.