swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Estoppel - From: 1980 To: 1984
This page lists 13 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Midland Bank Ltd v Farmpride Hatcheries (1981) 260 EG 493
1980
CA
Estoppel
A mortgage had been granted, but a twenty year rent free licence had not been disclosed. The bank came to seek possession, and was met with the assertion of the licence. The court at first instance had refused an injunction, saying that the appellant had behaved unconscionably in failing to disclose the licence. Held: The appellant was estopped from relying upon the licence since he had himself procured the mortgage. The bank was not fixed with notice under section 199 of the Act.
Law of Property Act 1925 99
Greasley v Cooke [1980] 1 WLR 1306; [1980] 3 All ER 710
1980
Estoppel
For a proprietary estoppel to arise the plaintiff must have incurred expenditure or otherwise have prejudiced himself or acted to his detriment. However, once it has been established that promises were made, and that there has been conduct by the plaintiff of such a nature that inducement may be inferred then the burden of proof shifts to the defendants to establish that he did not rely on the promises
1 Citers
McIlkenny v Chief Constable of the West Midlands; CA 1980 - [1980] QB 283; [1980] 2 All ER 227; [1980] 2 WLR 689
Salvation Army Trustee Co Ltd v West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council; 1980 - (1980) 41 P & CR 179
Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578; [1980] 1 All ER 731; [1980] 2 WLR 379
1980
HL
Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Scarman, Lord Fraser, Lord Lane
Planning, Estoppel
Issues arose as to a new planning permission for two existing hangars. Held: The appeal succeeded. The question of the validity of conditions attached to planning permissions will sometimes be a difficult one. To be valid, a condition must be imposed for a planning purpose and not for an ulterior one; it must fairly and reasonably relate to the development permitted and must not be so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have imposed it. Viscount Dilhorne summarised four conditions attached to planning permissions: "It follows that the conditions imposed must be for a planning purpose and not for any ulterior one, and that they must fairly and reasonably relate to the development permitted. Also they must not be so unreasonable that no reasonable planning authority could have imposed them." As to existing use rights: "If, however, the grant of planning permission, whether it be permission to build or for a change of use, is of such a character that the implementation of the permission leads to the creation of a new planning unit, then I think that it is right to say that existing use rights attaching to the former planning unit are extinguished."
Lord Scarman said that estoppels bind individuals on the ground that it would unconscionable for them to deny what they have represented or agreed, "but these concepts of private law should not be extended into "the public law of planning control, which binds everyone."
Lord Fraser: "The only circumstances in which existing use rights are lost by accepting and implementng a later planning permission are . . . When a new planning unit comes into existence. . ."
Lord Lane: "The holder of planning permission will not be allowed to rely on any existing use rights if the effect of the permission when acted on has been to bring one phase of the planning history of the site to an end and to start a new one." and "The change of use from repository to wholseale warehouse could not by any stretch of the imagination be said to have started a new plannning history or created a new planning unit. Indeed no one has so contended."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Planning BlawG ]
Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd; ChD 1981 - [1982] QB 133; [1981] 2 WLR 576; [1981] 1 All ER 897; [1979] 251 EG 159; [1979] EWHC Ch 1
Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council; CA 1981 - [1981] 2 All ER 204
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529; [1981] 3 WLR 906; [1981] UKHL 13; [1981] 3 All ER 727
19 Nov 1981
HL
Lord Diplock, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Roskill, Lord Brandon
Legal Professions, Police, Estoppel
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. Held: This was a collateral attack amounting to an abuse of process, not because of the the limits of police immunity, but to provide an effective immunity. The purpose of the action was not in truth to obtain damages from the Chief Constable but to undermine the conviction. Unless debarred from doing so, defendants convicted after a full and fair trial who failed to appeal successfully, may challenge their convictions by suing advocates who appeared for them. Public policy requires a defendant, who seeks to challenge his conviction, to do so directly by seeking to appeal his conviction.
Lord Diplock said: "My Lords, this is a case about abuse of the process of the High Court. It concerns the inherent power which any court of justice must possess to prevent misuse of its procedure in a way which, although not inconsistent with the literal application of its procedural rules, would nevertheless be manifestly unfair to a party to litigation before it, or would otherwise bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right-thinking people. The circumstances in which abuse of process can arise are very varied; those which give rise to the instant appeal must surely be unique. It would, in my view, be most unwise if this House were to use this occasion to say anything that might be taken as limiting to fixed categories the kinds of circumstances in which the court has a duty (I disavow the word discretion) to exercise this salutary power."
. . And "The abuse of process which the instant case exemplifies is the initiation of proceedings in a court of justice for the purpose of mounting a collateral attack upon a final decision against the intending plaintiff which has been made by another court of competent jurisdiction in previous proceedings in which the intending plaintiff had a full opportunity of contesting the decision in the court by which it was made."
Civil Evidence Act 1968 11
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd (in Liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd; CA 1982 - [1982] QB 84; [1981] 1 All ER 923; [1981] 2 WLR 554; [1982] 1 Lloyds Rep 27
Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd (in Liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd; CA 1982 - [1982] QB 84; [1981] 1 All ER 923; [1981] 2 WLR 554; [1982] 1 Lloyds Rep 27
Avon County Council v Howlett; CA 1983 - [1983] 1 WLR 605; [1983] 1 All ER 1073
Agip SpA v Navigazione Alta Italia SpA, "The Nai Genova"; CA 1984 - [1984] 1 Lloyds Law Reports 353
Keen v Holland [1984] 1 WLR 251; [1984] 1 All ER 75; (1983) 47 P & CR 639
1984
CA
Oliver LJ
Equity, Estoppel
Oliver LJ rejected a submission that, where parties were shown to have a common view about the legal effect of a contract into which they had entered and it was established that one of them would not, to the other's knowledge, have entered into it if that party had appreciated its true legal effect, they are estopped from asserting that the effect was otherwise than the party originally supposed. He said that that submission could not be right and that he could not see how an erroneous belief as to the effect of the contract could properly be described as a "conventional basis for dealings" so as to give rise to an estoppel, and "the jurisdiction to grant possession is exercisable only subject to the statutory provisions and it is a little difficult to see how the parties can, by estoppel , confer on the court a jurisdiction which they could not confer by express agreement"
1 Citers