承诺必须清晰以确立财产禁反言

2021年11月30日，英格兰和威尔士高等法院对The Right Honourable Ivor Edward other Windsor-Clive Earl of Plymouth et als v Jenkin Thomas Rees et als [2021] EWHC 3180一案作出判决，再次强调相关承诺必须清晰以确立财产禁反言。

1、背景介绍

申请人系农场所有人，被申请人的父亲Jenkin Rees系1965年至1968年期间农场的承租人，被申请人Phillip Rees则在其父亲于2021年去世后成为被申请人。2016年至2017年申请人获得在该农场及其他土地上的开发许可，其随后向被申请人发出离开农场的通知。根据1986年英国农地法，Jenkin Rees就该通知提出异议，并由一名仲裁员进行裁决。争议的核心问题之一是通知中的所有土地是否都属于开发许可的范围。2020年1月，仲裁员作出裁决认为通知中的三项是有效的。Jenkin Rees向法院提起上诉，上诉于2020年10月被驳回。2020年10月申请人就其农场所有权向法院起诉，Jenkin Rees则提出抗辩和反请求，认为根据申请人的代理人Knight先生的承诺，Phillip Rees将根据1986年农地法继承其父亲的农场租赁权，并在条件允许的情况下获得更多的土地以发展其农场生意。被申请人还主张其与父亲基于该承诺承担了更多的责任、没有反对申请人的开发许可申请、放弃部分土地以让申请人进行开发等。被申请人还请求法院裁决申请人恢复其对农场的占有或法院认为合适的其它方式以实现衡平。

2、法院认定

法院认为，当事人之间对于相关事实没有明显的争议，争议的焦点是承诺的相关证据是否足以构成财产禁反言（“The focus of the submissions was upon whether the evidence of promises, taken at its highest, was sufficient to amount to the sort of promises which can found a case of proprietary estoppel.”）。相关证据包括Phillip Rees的证据，其父亲在临终前的简短证人陈述(witnessstatement)，被申请人律师向Knight先生调取的出席记录（attendance notes），但不包括证人陈述因为76岁的Knight先生健康状态不允许。法院则结合综合的情况指出，对于Knight先生的出席记录给与较小的考虑比较合适。根据Phillip Rees，承诺的核心内容是申请人不会在没有给与合理赔偿的情况下寻求占有农场，该赔偿将足以保证其与父亲搬到其它农场并继续从事农业工作。

对于财产禁反言原则，双方同样没有实体的争议，但法院指出双方的争议在于这些原则该如何适用于本案事实。在Layton v Martin [1986] 2 FLR 227案中，法院指出财产禁反言涉及财产所有人是否可以基于对其严格的法律权利的坚持来挫败第三方基于财产所有人之行为而产生对该财产的预期（"The proprietary estoppel line of cases are concerned with the question whether an owner of property can, by insisting on his strict legal rights therein, defeat an expectation of an interest in that property, it beingan expectation which he has raised by his conduct which has been relied on by the claimant.”）。在Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18案中，则涉及一项陈述是否足够清晰以建立财产禁反言。Lord Walker指出，为确立财产禁反言，相关的保证必须是足够清晰，至于如何才构成足够的清晰则在很大程度上取决于有关背景（“I would prefer to say that to establish a proprietary estoppel the relevant assurance must be clear enough. What amounts to sufficient clarity, in a case of this sort, is hugely dependent on context. I respectfully concur in the way Hoffmann LJ put it in Walton v Walton......’The promise must be unambiguous and must appear to have been intended to be taken seriously. Taken in its context, it must have been a promise which one might reasonably expect to be relied upon by the person to whom it was made’.”）。对于财产禁反言与允诺禁反言的区别，Lord Walker进一步指出，给与申请人的保证与被申请人所有的特定财产相关是财产禁反言的一项必要要素，这也是区别于允诺禁反言的一个重要特征。允诺禁反言必须是基于一项已存在的法律关系（通常是合同），财产禁反言不需要基于一项已存在的法律关系，但其必须是与被申请人持有的一项特定财产（通常是土地）相关（"In my opinion it is a necessary element of proprietary estoppel that the assurances given to the claimant (expressly or impliedly, or, in standing-by cases, tacitly) should relate to identified property owned by the defendant. That is one of the main distinguishing features between the two varieties of equitable estoppel, that is promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel. The former must be based on an existing legal relationship (usually a contract, but not necessarily a contract relating to land). The latter need not be based on an existing legal relationship, but it must relate to identified property (usually land) owned by the defendant.”）。

对于本案，法院认为尽管迁移至有关土地是承诺的一部分，但此后并没有此类土地被确定为可用。此外，Phillip Rees及其父亲知晓其可能因农场开发不得不离开农场，并期待可以在别处从事农业，而该它处同样是不确定的土地。法院最终认为缺乏承诺的必要因素，因为申请人所有或即将所有的土地并不特定（“However, as Phillip Rees accepted in cross-examination, although relocation to land on the claimants’ estate was mentioned as part of the promises, as was a greenfield site, no such land has since been identified as available. Moreover, he also accepted that he and his father knew they might have to leave the farm when they could no longer farm because of the development, and hoped that they would farm elsewhere, again on unidentified land......Accordingly, in my judgment, the necessary element of promises relating to identified land owned or to be owned by the claimants is absent.”）。

法院同样强调，一项承诺是否足够清晰以确立财产禁反言取决于有关背景。本案中尽管申请人父子与Knight先生关系良好，但作出承诺的背景实际上是当事方之间的合同性关系，而当事方均由代理人行事。对于财产、合同权利或金钱均存在不确定性，对于金钱双方并没有就合理补偿达成一个量化的框架 (“......it remains the fact that the context in which the promises were made was a contractual one between the parties where each had a land agent acting. In my judgment, there was uncertainty as to what was to happen in terms of property, interest, contractual rights or money. In terms of the latter no boundaries or formula was set for the quantification of fair compensation.”)。法院认为即使进行进一步的庭审，本案背景下如何确定公正的补偿仍然具有不确定性。法院强调其也不会适用其它情景下适用于补偿评估的有关原则。法院最终认为相关承诺并不清晰无法确立财产禁反言。

3、结论

法院最终认为财产禁反言的主张并不成立，申请人对该农场享有财产权。单宁勋爵在20世纪70年代曾对禁反言作出定义，即禁反言是一项审判原则和衡平法的原则，当一个人通过其言语或行为导致另一个人相信了某种特定的事实状态时，如果他推翻他的言语或行为会产生不公平或不公正的话，那么他将不被允许那样做。禁反言又可以分为法庭审理案件过程中的禁反言（或一事不再理）以及法庭之外的禁反言。法庭之外的禁反言又可以分为契约性禁反言和基于信赖之禁反言。本案中的财产禁反言即为基于信赖之禁反言的一种，其主要涉及土地权利之交易。本案对财产禁反言的法律特征进行了澄清，其中包括有关承诺必须是清晰的，且该承诺必须是与承诺人持有的一项特定财产（通常是土地）相关。