•The local council led Mr Crabb to believe that he would be granted an easement to part of his land after a subdivision. Mr Crabb succeeded in his claim for proprietary estoppel: Crabb v Arun District Council  1 Ch 179.Proprietary Estoppel by Acquiescence•Mr Westgate was found to have acquiesced to Mr High’s building of a garage on his land, because of Mr Westgate’s failure to raise any objections to Mr High’s entry to and from his property to access the garage: E R Ives Investment v High  2 QB 379.
Equitable Estoppel•Equitable estoppel is not focused on representations, but rather to prevent unconscionable conduct. It combines promissory and proprietary estoppel. It is knownas “a sword and a shield”: Waltons Stores v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387. •Mr Maher was led to believe that Waltons Stores would sign a lease and consequently demolished an old site in order to construct a building. It was held that estoppel applied: Waltons Stores v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387. •Parties had yet to agree on rent payable under a lease. Court held that no estoppel can arise until there has been unambiguous inducement: Austotel v Franklins Self-Serve (1989) 16 NSWLR 582.•A farmer who worked on the farm for 30 years for his father’s cousin successfully argued for the existence of estoppel based on a pattern of behaviour over time rather than a specific promise: Thorner v Major  3 All ER 946.Equitable Estoppel•Estoppel can be found in cases of unjust enrichment, but only once representation, reliance and detriment has been established:Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management  1 WLR 1752.•The Van Dykes occupied a cottage belonging to the Sidhus. Mrs Van Dyke had a sexual relationship with Mr Sidhu. He promised to subdivide the property in order to transfer the cottage to Mrs Van Dyke. She was able to demonstrate estoppel, as she had suffered detrimental reliance for not seeking a property settlement in her divorce and not seeking full time employment based on Mr Sidhu’s representation: Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 251 CLR 505.Equitable Estoppel•The High Court held that estoppel applied due to the requirements of conscientious conduct. The Giumelli parents promised their son Robert that he would inherit the family property if he stayed and worked on their orchard business. Robert did as told, but married a woman that his parents did not approve of. His brother Steven was given the land. Robert successfully received equitable damages in estoppel: Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101.
Estoppel can be used in choses in action, but only if it can be proved that the promisor made an inducement that the promisee relied on to his or her detriment: Olsson v Dyson (1969) 120CLR 365Gifts •In common law, a gift of property is effective when the donor has transferred the legaltitle to donee: Re Stoneham  1 Ch 149.