Category: Estoppel

Steven We Ping Wall v Sheffield City Council: CA 23 Mar 2006

The appellant had been fostered by the deceased, and on her death continued to live in her house held under a secure tenancy of the respondent. The council sought possession, saying that he was not a member of the deceased’s family within section 113, and that in any event he had not occupied the property for twelve months as required. The court found an estoppel against the council which had given written re-assurance to the deceased that the son would take over the tenancy. The court ordered possession saying the claimant had not met the residency qualification. He had been asked by his firm to work at their London offices.
Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded. The judge had in his judgment failed properly to address the law and the evidence. There was no evidence to contradict the claimant’s asserted history which established the residency period. He had said that despite the secondment he always intended to return to the house.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 495

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 85 113

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Crawley Borough Council v Sawyer CA 1987
The court considered whether a tenancy had ceased to be secure by reason of the tenant’s failure to continue to fulfil the condition set by section 81 of the Act of 1985, namely occupation of the property ‘as his only or principal home’. For about a . .
Cited – Brickfield Ltd v Hughes CA 1988
In considering whether a secure tenancy was lost by the tenant abandoning his residence there, the court set out the applicable principles. Where absence is more prolonged than is to be explained by holiday or ordinary business reasons and is . .
Cited – Camden London Borough Council v Goldenberg and Another CA 1-Apr-1996
The appellant had lived for a number of years with his grandmother; had then married; had thereupon moved with his bride for three months into a house owned by friends who were abroad; had, throughout that time, left the bulk of his belongings at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Estoppel

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241402

Actionstrength Limited v International Glass Engineering, In Gl En SPA, Saint-Gobain Glass UK Limited: CA 10 Oct 2001

The claimant sought payment for works undertaken. They had been given a promise that in return for not withdrawing their workforce from the site, the second defendants would redirect payments due to the first defendant to the claimant. When it came to it, they asserted that that agreement was void under the Act since it was not evidenced in writing. At this stage the issue was whether the agreement was a guarantee or an agreement accepting a primary obligation. They answered that since the liability was contingent upon non-payment it was not a primary obligation. Held In these cases the court must look to the substance more than the form. The agreement fell within the act, and no estoppel arose.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Peter Gibson and Lord Justice Tucke

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1477, [2002] 1 WLR 566, [2002] TCLR 10, [2002] 4 All ER 468, [2002] BLR 44, [2002] CLC 153

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Statute of Frauds 1677 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Motemtronic Limited v Autocar Equipment Limited CA 20-Jun-1996
The parties said: ‘Mrs Ford: Where would money come from if M [the principal debtor] had to repay andpound;1 million? Colin Searle [the second defendant, M’s chairman]: From wherever in the group the money was at the relevant time. I’ll make sure it . .
Cited – Harburg India Rubber Comb Co v Martin CA 1902
The defendant had been a member of a syndicate which owed money to the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained judgment against the syndicate and tried (unsuccessfully) to execute a writ of fi fa. The defendant then gave an oral promise that, if the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Actionstrength Limited v International Glass Engineering In Gl En SpA and others HL 3-Apr-2003
Actionstrength agreed with Inglen to provide construction staff to build a factory for St-Gobain. Inglen failed to pay. Actionstrength claimed against for the amount due. Inglen went into liquidation. The claim was now against St-Gobain. The claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Construction, Estoppel

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.166541

Koeller and Another v Coleg Elidyr (Camphill Communities Wales) Ltd: CA 12 Jul 2005

The applicants occupied a house as licensees. An order for possession was made against them. The company was a charitable company set up to provide accomodation in communities for handicapped adults. The workers in the communities were not formally salaried, but the Inland Revenue had taxed the benefits received. It was argued for them at the time that no intention to create legal relations existed. The claimants now said that they had a status as contractual tenants, and had agreed to resign from the company on the basis that financial provision would be made to allow them to find alternative accomodation. It was then proposed to purchase a property in which they could live, and an approach was made to the Charities Commission to approve the arrangement. The Commission declined. The applicants now claimed a proprietary estoppel.
Held: The company and the community were separate in law. The decision to seek possession was that of the company alone, and was not he same as the decision to expel him from the community. It bordered on the fanciful to say that the decision of the company was in breach of natural justice. They acted fairly and properly. The appellant had accepted the decision of the community to expel him. No intention to create contractual relations was established. The approach taken by the Charity Commission was to be regretted.

Judges:

Auld, Parker, Arden, LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 856, [2005] BCLC 379

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Byrne v Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd 1958
The court formulated the principles of natural justice: ‘What then are the requirements of natural justice? First, I think that the person accused should know the nature of the accusation made; secondly, that he should be given an opportunity to . .
Cited – Baird Textile Holdings Limited v Marks and Spencer Plc CA 28-Feb-2001
The court considered the requirements to establish a proprietary estoppel: ‘It is on authority an established feature of both promissory and conventional estoppel that the parties should have had the objective intention to make, affect or confirm . .
Cited – Faramus v Film Artistes’ Association HL 1964
Parties to a contract may be bound to act in it according to the rules of natural justice. . .
Cited – Lee v Showmens Guild of Great Britain CA 1952
Decisions of inferior tribunals, including arbitrators, were reviewable on the basis of general error of law on record for which certiorari might issue. A decision may be reviewable where there was no evidence supporting particular conclusions.
Cited – Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc and Another v Maclaine Watson and Co Ltd and Others 1989
The court considered the requirements of natural justice in the light of the decision in Gaiman: ‘Nor do I consider my conclusions to be inconsistent with the decision of Megarry J in [Gaiman] because Megarry J held that the principles of natural . .
Cited – McInnes v Onslow-Fane ChD 1978
The applicant had been granted a boxing manager’s licence for several years. He appealed its refusal now over a few years.
Held: The case was in the application for a licence rather than in a forfeiture or an expectation class, and there was . .
Cited – Gaiman v The National Association for Mental Health ChD 1970
The court considered the articles of an association without share capital but limited by guarantee. One article provided that a member should cease to be a member of the association if he were requested by resolution of the council to resign. It was . .
Cited – O’Neill and Another v Phillips and Others; In re a Company (No 00709 of 1992) HL 20-May-1999
The House considered a petition by a holder of 25 of the 100 issued shares in the company against the majority shareholder. The petitioner, an ex-employee, had been taken into management and then given his shares and permitted to take 50% of the . .
Cited – Booker v Palmer CA 1942
The owner of a cottage agreed to allow a friend to install an evacuee in the cottage rent free for the duration of the war.
Held: There was no intention on the part of the owner to enter into legal relationships with the evacuee. Lord Greene . .
Cited – Nagle v Fielden CA 1966
The applicant, a lady jockey appealed refusal by the Jockey Club to issue to her a jockey’s license based simply on the fact of her sex.
Held: Her appeal succeeded. The refusal was against public policy. Where a man’s right to work was in . .

Cited by:

Cited – The New Testament Church of God v Reverend Stewart CA 19-Oct-2007
The appellant appealed a finding that the respondent had been its employee, saying he was a minister of religion.
Held: The judge had been entitled to find an intention to create legal relations, and therefore that the claimant was an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Estoppel, Company

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228431

Vehicles and Supplies Ltd and others v Financial Institutions Services Ltd: PC 28 Jun 2005

(Jamaica) Parties had entered into a joint venture, before one fell into severe financial difficulties. A scheme of arrangement was proposed in which plots which were part of the development would be apportioned, but steps were not taken to complete this. The land was transferred to VandS. FIS obtained an order for possession. VandS appealed, saying it was a tenant of the properties.
Held: The claimants pleaded that no no estoppel per rem judicata arose. No such estoppel could arise in respect of an order which was not final, such as an interim order or a judgment obtained in default of appearance. The appeal was dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Citations:

[2005] UKPC 24

Links:

PC, Bailii, PC

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Cited – Ramsden v Dyson HL 11-May-1866
The Vice-Chancellor had held that two tenants of Sir John Ramsden, the owner of a large estate near Huddersfield, were entitled to long leases of plots on the estate. They ostensibly held the plots as tenants at will only, but they had spent their . .
Distinguished – Patrick v Beverley Gardens Development Company Ltd PC 1979
A resident magistrate (whose summary order for possession of land, made on proceedings commenced by an information, lay at the foundation of arguments about estoppel) had no jurisdiction to decide a question of title to land. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228319

Dillwyn v Llewelyn: ChD 12 Jul 1862

The father thought he had given his younger son land in Wales, in signing a memorandum and presenting it to him ‘for the purpose of furnishing himself with a dwelling-house’. The memorandum was not by deed. The son built his home on the land. When the father died, the elder son disputed his brother’s title.
Held: The Master of the Rolls said younger son was entitled to a life interest. Lord Westbury LC allowed the younger son’s appeal, saying: ‘About the rules of the Court there can be no controversy. A voluntary agreement will not be completed or assisted by a Court of Equity, in cases of mere gift. If anything be wanting to complete the title of the donee, a Court of Equity will not assist him in obtaining it; for a mere donee can have no right to claim more than he has received. But the subsequent acts of the donor may give the donee that right or ground of claim which he did not acquire from the original gift . . so if A puts B in possession of a piece of land, and tells him, ‘I give it to you that you may build a house on it,’ and B on the strength of that promise, with the knowledge of A, expends a large sum of money in building a house accordingly, I cannot doubt that the donee acquires a right from the subsequent transaction to call on the donor to perform that contract and complete the imperfect donation which was made. The case is somewhat analogous to that of verbal agreement not binding originally for the want of the memorandum in writing signed by the party to be charged, but which becomes binding by virtue of the subsequent part performance.’ The Lord Chancellor awarded the younger son the fee simple since ‘no one builds a house for his own life only.’

Judges:

The Lord Chancellor Lord Westbury

Citations:

[1862] EWHC Ch J67, [1862] 45 ER 1284, (1862) 4 De GF and J 517, [1862] EngR 908, (1862) 4 De G F and J 517, (1862) 45 ER 1285

Links:

Bailii, Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Equity, Estoppel

Leading Case

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.245427

Hazel v Akhtar and Another: CA 12 Dec 2001

A landlord who had consistently accepted late payment of rent from his tenant could become estopped from refusing renewal of a business tenancy on the grounds of late payment of rent. That tenant’s conduct as regards payment of rent involving repeated minor breaches of his obligations under the lease had been acceptable to the landlords was significant. They were estopped in law and equity from insisting that the tenant comply strictly with the lease until such time as the tenant received clear notice that strict compliance was required.

Judges:

Lord Justice Henry and Sir Anthony Evans

Citations:

Times 07-Jan-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 1883, [2002] 07 EG 124, [2002] 07 EG 124, [2002] L and TR 22, [2002] 1 EGLR 45, [2002] 2 P and CR 17, [2002] 1 P and CR DG18, [2002] 1 EGCS 73

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.167349

Ernst Kastner v Marc Jason, Davis Sherman, Brigitte Sherman: CA 2 Dec 2004

The parties had agreed that their dispute should be resolved before the Jewish Beth Din according to Jewish substantive and procedural law. K was granted an interim freezing order. The defendant sold the asset, and K sought to assert a charge.
Held: Jewish law specifically provide that the decision of the Beth Din operated in personam only. Such an order could not be translated into an order in rem by seeking to enforce the award in the English Courts. Mr Jason’s submission to the Beth Din and its orders could not translate into a proprietary estoppel or constructive trust. English law is not relevant for the purpose of discovering a remedy which Jewish law does not provide.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke The Lord Chief Justice Of England &Amp; Wales Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1599, Times 21-Dec-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996 48

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gillett v Holt and Another CA 23-Mar-2000
Repeated Assurances Created Equitable Estoppel
Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
Cited – PW and Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd (BT Property Ltd and another, Part 20 defendants) ChD 8-Aug-2003
The parties, head lessor and sub-lessess, had assumed that following Brown -v- Wilson the sub-lease would continue upon the determination of the head lease, and had overlooked Pennell which overruled Brown v Wilson. However the lease made express . .
Cited – Edwards, Drummond Smith v Flightline Limited CA 5-Feb-2003
The applicant company obtained an injunction against another company. That freezing injunction was discharged upon the payment of a sum into the names of the respective parties’ solicitors. The company went into liquidation, and the claimant . .
Cited – Cretanor Maritime Co Ltd v Irish Marine Management Ltd CA 1978
A freezing order is relief in personam and creates no proprietary rights in the assets from time to time subject to it. Buckley LJ said that where an injunction required assets up to a stated value to be kept within the jurisdiction: ‘There must . .
Cited – Stockler v Fourways Estates Ltd 1984
The rule that an ordinary freezing order does not entitle a party in whose favour it was granted to say that he had a property or security interest in the respondent’s assets in question, applies where a freezing order fixes on a single specified . .
Cited – Palmer v Carey PC 1926
A lender financed a trader in goods, on the basis the proceeds of sale of the goods be paid into an account in the name of the lender, and that the lender recoup himself on a monthly basis in respect of sums advanced, with the balance being released . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc ComC 3-Feb-2004
The claimant had obtained orders against two companies who banked with the respondent. Asset freezing orders were served on the bank, but within a short time the customer used the bank’s Faxpay national service to transfer substantial sums outside . .
Cited – Coupland v Arabian Gulf Oil Co QBD 1983
The plaintiff employee, injured whilst working for the defendant in Libya, sued in contract and tort. The judge held that Libyan law was the proper law of the contract, but that this was of no relevance to the claim in tort which could proceed here . .
Cited – Swiss Bank Corporation v Lloyds Bank Ltd CA 1981
An equitable charge is created when property is expressly or constructively made liable to the discharge of a debt or some other obligation, and the charge confers on the chargee a right of realisation by judicial process such as a sale order. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Estoppel

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220222

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Pal and Others: ChD 31 Jul 2006

The taxpayers had challenged an assessment to VAT saying that they were not actually partners in the company assessed. The revenue countered to say that they had signed the registration form to say that they were partners. The revenue now appealed a decision in the taxpayers’ favour.
Held: The appeal failed. The partners were partners at common law or under the 1890 Act only. S45 of the 1994 Act required an actual partnership. The holding themselves out as partners when signing the VAT registration form was not sufficient to make them partners.

Judges:

Patten J

Citations:

Times 29-Aug-2006

Statutes:

Partnership Act 1890 14, Value Added Tax Act 1994 45(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re C and M Ashberg 17-Jul-1990
An estoppel by representation could not be used to establish satisfaction of a stautory condition. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Company, Estoppel

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.244744

Porter v Secretary of State for Transport: CA 1996

Land had been compulsorily acquired for a road. The plaintiff was granted on appeal under section 18 of the 1961 Act a certificate of appropriate alternative development in respect of the land acquired, namely that the land acquired would have been suitable for residential development.
Held: On a valuation on a compulsory purchase of land, the value is not dependent on findings on probabilities or even that ‘it could reasonably have been expected that planning permission would be granted’.
Stuart Smith LJ set out the four elements for an issue estoppel: ‘It is common ground that four matters have to be established if there is to be an issue estoppel. ‘(1) The issue in question must have been decided by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction.
(2) The issue must be one which arises between parties who are parties to the decision. This also is accepted.
(3) The issue must have been decided finally and must be of a type to which an issue estoppel can apply.
(4) The issue in respect of which the estoppel is said to operate must be the same as that previously decided.’ and ‘Where a court or tribunal has to decide what would have happened in a hypothetical situation which does not exist, it usually has to approach the matter on the basis of assessing what were the chances or prospect of it happening. The chance may be almost a certainty at one end to a mere speculative hope at the other. The value will depend on how good this chance is. Where, however, the court or tribunal has to decide what in fact has happened as an historical fact, it does so on balance of probability; and once it decides that it is more probable than not, then the fact is found and is established as a certainty. This distinction is well illustrated by Davies v Taylor [1972] 3 All ER 836, [1974] AC 207 and Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons and Simmons (a firm) [1995] 4 All ER 907, [1995] 1 WLR 1602.,br />It would be unnecessary for the Secretary of State to evaluate the chance of the eastern route being the preferred alternative route in the event that the actual route was not chosen, provided it was more than 50%; but the Lands Tribunal would be concerned in assessing value to evaluate the chances of this happening more precisely.’

Judges:

Stuart Smith LJ

Citations:

[1996] 3 All ER 693

Statutes:

Compulsory Purchase Act 1965

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Porter v Secretary of State for Transport LT 1995
A positive section 17 (or section 18) certificate has been issued on the basis that the relevant land would be developed, or could only be developed, in conjunction with other land in the vicinity. It was argued that no assumption arose as a matter . .

Cited by:

Cited – Transport for London (London Underground Ltd) v Spirerose Ltd HL 30-Jul-2009
Compulsory Purchase Compensation – Land As it Is
The House considered the basis of calculation of compensation on the compulsory purchase of land without planning permission, but where permission would probably be granted. The appellant challenged the decision which had treated the probability as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages, Estoppel

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.372588

Re State of Norway’s Application (No 2): HL 1989

The government of Norway sought evidence here to support a claim for tax in Norway.
Held: The State of Norway’s application requesting the oral examination of two witnesses residing in England did not fall foul of the Revenue rule. A claim will not be enforced here, where the claimant is asserting a sovereign right or where the central interest of the claimant is governmental in nature, however, Lord Goff said: ‘It is of importance to observe that that rule is limited to cases of direct or indirect enforcement in this country of the revenue laws of a foreign state. It is plain that the present case is not concerned with the direct enforcement of the revenue laws of the State of Norway. Is it concerned with their indirect enforcement? I do not think so. It is stated in Dicey and Morris, at p. 103, that indirect enforcement occurs (1) where the foreign state (or its nominee) in form seeks a remedy which in substance is designed to give the foreign law extraterritorial effect, or (2) where a private party raises a defence based on the foreign law in order to vindicate or assert the right of the foreign state. I have been unable to discover any case of indirect enforcement which goes beyond these two propositions. Even so, since there is no authority directly in point to guide me, I have to consider whether a case such as the present should nevertheless be held to fall foul of the rule. For my part, I cannot see that it should. I cannot see any extraterritorial exercise of sovereign authority in seeking the assistance of the courts of this country in obtaining evidence which will be used for the enforcement of the revenue laws of Norway in Norway itself.’
Lord Goff discussed the phrase ‘civil or commercial matters’, and said of itsuse in the 1856 Act: ‘Here we find the first mention in an Act of Parliament, at least in this context, of the expression ‘civil or commercial matter.’ It is plain that here the word ‘matter’ is used as referring to the relevant proceedings; because in section 1 the ‘matter’ is required (consistently with the long title and section 2 of the Act) to be pending before the foreign court or tribunal. This reinforces the natural inference that, in section 1 of the Act, the expression ‘civil matter’ is being given no restricted meaning, and would be understood in this country as referring to civil, as opposed to criminal, proceedings. It is true that this gives no weight to the words ‘or commercial’ so far as the law of this country is concerned: but it is not surprising to find these words added in relation to a jurisdiction which will be invoked by courts or tribunals in foreign countries, many of which differentiate between civil and commercial matters.’

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley

Citations:

[1990] 1 AC 723

Statutes:

Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975, Foreign Tribunals Evidence Act 1856

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Attorney-General of New Zealand v Ortiz CA 2-Jan-1982
The defendant was to sell a Maori carving which had been unlawfully exported from New Zealand. The Attorney General sought its recovery and an injunction to prevent its sale, relying on the Historical Articles Act 1962. The judge had ordered its . .
Appeal from – Re State of Norway’s Application (No 2) CA 1988
The basic requirement for an issue estoppel to arise was that ‘the earlier determination relied on as raising an issue estoppel shall have been fundamental to the decision first arrived at’. The Board did not accept that an issue estoppel is . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 23-Oct-2006
Foreign Public Law Not Enforceable Here
The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, International, Evidence

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.245569

Shah v Shah and others: CA 7 Mar 2001

Renewed application for permission to appeal – whether deed validly signed.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 493

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Leave given – Shah v Shah CA 10-Apr-2001
The court was asked as to the enforceability of a document under the terms of which the defendants were to make a payment of pounds 1.5 million to the claimant. The document was described as a deed and provided for each defendant to sign in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel, Land

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200929

Uglow v Uglow and others: CA 27 Jul 2004

The deceased had in 1976 made a promise to the claimant. The promise was not honoured in the will, and the claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel.
Held: The judge was right to have found that the promise was bound up with the claimant being a partner in part of the farm. That partnership had later foundered. The earlier assurance was not irrevocable, and no estoppel arose.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Jonathan Parker

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 987, [2004] WTLR 1183.

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Jennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed CA 22-Feb-2002
The claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel against the respondents. He had worked for the deceased over many years, for little payment, and doing more and more for her. Though he still worked full time at first, he came to spend nights at the . .
Cited – Ramsden v Dyson HL 11-May-1866
The Vice-Chancellor had held that two tenants of Sir John Ramsden, the owner of a large estate near Huddersfield, were entitled to long leases of plots on the estate. They ostensibly held the plots as tenants at will only, but they had spent their . .
Cited – Wayling v Jones CA 2-Aug-1993
The plaintiff and defendant were in a homosexual relationship. The plaintiff worked for the defendant for nominal expenses against his repeated promise to leave the business to him in his will. A will was made to that effect, but the defendant sold . .

Cited by:

Cited – Thorner v Curtis and others ChD 26-Oct-2007
The claimant said that the deceased, his father and a farmer, had made representations to him over many years that if the claimant continued to work on the farm, he would leave the farm to him in his will. He died intestate. He claimed a proprietary . .
Cited – Thorner v Major and others CA 2-Jul-2008
The deceased had written a will, revoked it but then not made another. The claimant had worked for the deceased understanding that property would be left to him, and now claimed that the estate property was held under a trust for him.
Held: . .
Cited – Thorner v Major and others HL 25-Mar-2009
The deceased had made a will including a gift to the claimant, but had then revoked the will. The claimant asserted that an estoppel had been created in his favour over a farm, and that the defendant administrators of the promisor’s estate held it . .
Cited – Gill v Woodall and Others ChD 5-Oct-2009
The claimant challenged her late mother’s will which had left the entire estate to a charity. She asserted lack of knowledge and approval and coercion, and also an estoppel. The will included a note explaining that no gift had been made because she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Estoppel

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199572

In re Ottos Kopje Diamond Mines Ltd: CA 1893

Bowen LJ: (referring to Bahia) ‘The way in which the Court made the company liable was this: they said that in as much as the certificate had been intended to be acted upon, it became a document the truth of which the company could not deny as against the transferee to whom it was intended to be shewn; and, therefore, it precluded the company, as against the transferee, from denying the truth of what the certificate contained; they could not be in any better position than if the statement were true;’

Judges:

Bowen LJ

Citations:

[1893] Ch 618

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Mentioned – Cadbury Schweppes Plc and Another v Halifax Share Dealing Ltd and Another ChD 23-May-2006
Fraudsters had successfully contrived to sell shares of others, by re-registering the shares to new addresses and requesting new certificates. The question was which of the company, the company registrars and the stockbrokers should bear the loss. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Company

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.242174

Simm and Others v Anglo-American Telegraph Co: CA 1879

A firm which had acted through nominees sought to raise an estoppel as to its status on the company registers.
Held: The nominees acquired a ‘title by estoppel’ against the company following the issue by the company of a share certificate to the nominees. But that ‘title’ had been lost by the time the action began and was not available to Burge and Co. No representation was made which they had acted upon. Even if there had been a representation, that firm had not altered their position in any material way.

Judges:

Brett LJ, Cotton LJ

Citations:

(1879) 5 QBD 188

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Dixon v Kennaway and Co 1900
Farwell J said: ‘There is no doubt on the authorities that a certificate under the seal of the company estops the company from denying the title of a person who has accepted and acted on the certificate. In Knights -v- Wiffen [LR 5 QB 660 at 665] . .
Cited – Cadbury Schweppes Plc and Another v Halifax Share Dealing Ltd and Another ChD 23-May-2006
Fraudsters had successfully contrived to sell shares of others, by re-registering the shares to new addresses and requesting new certificates. The question was which of the company, the company registrars and the stockbrokers should bear the loss. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Company

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.242177

Baxendale v Bennett: CA 1878

‘All estoppels are odious’ They should not be upheld unless they satisfy precisely the provisions of the law.

Judges:

Bramwell LJ

Citations:

[1878] 3 QBD 525, 3 CPD 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cadbury Schweppes Plc and Another v Halifax Share Dealing Ltd and Another ChD 23-May-2006
Fraudsters had successfully contrived to sell shares of others, by re-registering the shares to new addresses and requesting new certificates. The question was which of the company, the company registrars and the stockbrokers should bear the loss. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.242179

Rockwater Ltd v Technip France Sa (Formerly Coflexip Sa), Technip Offshore UK Limited (Formerly Coflexip Stena Offshore Limited): CA 1 Apr 2004

Judges:

Pill LJ, Mummery LJ, Jacob LJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 381, [2004] RPC 46

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Doubted in part – Kirin-Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others etc HL 21-Oct-2004
The claims arose in connection with the validity and alleged infringement of a European Patent on erythropoietin (‘EPO’).
Held: ‘Construction is objective in the sense that it is concerned with what a reasonable person to whom the utterance . .
See Also – Rockwater Ltd v Technip France Sa (Formerly Coflexip Sa), Technip Offshore UK Limited (Formerly Coflexip Stena Offshore Limited) CA 6-Apr-2004
Jacob LJ said that the skilled person who must be enabled to make the product from a patent specification, is not expected to be inventive or even, as is sometimes said, imaginative . .
Cited – Halliburton Energy Services, Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd and others PatC 21-Jul-2005
A claim was made for a method of design in which certain calculations were to be carried out recursively, modifying the results each time until a particular criterion was satisfied. Though the method was susceptible of solution by computer, but the . .
Cited – W L Gore and Associates Gmbh v Geox Spa PatC 7-Oct-2008
The claimants sought a declaration of non-infringement of four patents relating to waterproof fabrics for shoes.
Held: The patents could not be set as invalid for obviousness. . .
Cited – W L Gore and Associates Gmbh v Geox Spa PatC 7-Oct-2008
The claimants sought a declaration of non-infringement of four patents relating to waterproof fabrics for shoes.
Held: The patents could not be set as invalid for obviousness. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Estoppel

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195024

Century SA (UK) Ltd v Clibbery and Another: CA 17 Jul 2003

The major shareholder in the claimant company allowed the defendant and her mother to occupy a substantial house owned by the company. When possession was sought, the defendant argued that it had been promised to her that she could live there for as long as she wished. The defendant now asserted a proprietary estoppel, and appealed summary judgment against her.
Held: The matter should go to full trial.

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1374

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gillett v Holt and Another CA 23-Mar-2000
Repeated Assurances Created Equitable Estoppel
Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Equity

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187102

Parker v Parker: ChD 24 Jul 2003

Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time.
Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable notice, but all the circumstances of the present case pointed toward the inference of a licence. In this case a easonable period of notice might extend to years.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1846 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A: A v A CA 22-Jul-2002
The Customs appealed an order allowing a judge in divorce ancillary relief proceedings to make an order transferring the matrimonial home and two life policies in such a way as would defeat their attempt to enforce recovery under the 1994 Act.
Cited – Pascoe v Turner CA 1-Dec-1978
The defendant had been assured by the plaintiff that ‘the house is yours and everything in it.’ In reliance on that assurance she carried out improvements to the house. Although the improvements were modest, their cost represented a large part of . .
Cited – Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD 1981
The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .
Cited – Yaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
Cited – Gillett v Holt and Another CA 23-Mar-2000
Repeated Assurances Created Equitable Estoppel
Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
Cited – Jennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed CA 22-Feb-2002
The claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel against the respondents. He had worked for the deceased over many years, for little payment, and doing more and more for her. Though he still worked full time at first, he came to spend nights at the . .
Cited – Keelwalk Properties Ltd v Betty Waller and Another CA 30-Jul-2002
The claimant appealed refusal of its claim for possession against the respondents, occupiers of single-storey wooden bungalows on its land. The leases had expired. The defendants said the structures were their own, and not subject to the lease, and . .
Cited – Inwards v Baker CA 13-Jan-1965
An indulgent father had encouraged his son to build a bungalow on his, the father’s, land. The son had done so in the expectation, encouraged by the father, that he would be permitted to remain in occupation.
Held: The court formulated the . .
Cited – Crabb v Arun District Council CA 23-Jul-1975
The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .
Cited – Griffiths v Williams CA 1978
The claimant had been told she could live in a house for her life. On that assurance she improved the house.
Held: She had raised an equity, but how could it be satisfied? The court declined to order the grant of a life interest because it . .
Cited – Watson v Goldsborough CA 1986
The representative of an angling club sent the owner of the land a draft lease. The owner agreed that the club could have a lease, and in reliance on that assurance the club improved the land.
Held: An equity had been established and that it . .
Cited – In re Basham dec’d; Basham v Basham 1986
The claimant and her husband had helped her mother and her stepfather throughout the claimant’s adult life. She received no remuneration but understood that she would inherit her stepfather’s property when he died. After her mother’s death and until . .
Cited – Pridean Limited v Forest Taverns Limited; Hipwell and Marshall CA 28-Nov-1996
The claimant owned a public house. It set out with the defendant to to acquire the premises or to take a lease of them. The defendant went into occupation, and carried out works. Negotiations continued, but broke down over the form of protection to . .
Cited – Orgee v Orgee CA 5-Nov-1997
The defendant had claimed an agricultural tenancy under a proprietary estoppel. His claim succeeded at first instance. The judge found it had been clearly understood that he would continue to farm the land on the basis of an agricultural tenancy, as . .
Cited – JT Developments v Quinn and Another CA 1990
The plaintiff told the defendant it was willing to grant a lease on the same terms as those contained in a new tenancy that the plaintiff had recently granted to the tenant of a nearby shop, also owned by the plaintiff. The defendant carried out . .
Cited – Willis v Hoare 1999
Auld LJ said of Crabb: there ‘could be no doubt as to the nature and extent of the remedy required to give effect to [the] equity’. Of JT Developments ‘the nature and terms of the equity were readily identifiable’. Auld LJ said: ‘There may be . .
Cited – New Zealand Netherlands Society ‘Oranje’ Inc v Laurentuis Cornelis Kuys PC 1963
(New Zealand) The scope of a fiduciary duty may be modified by a course of dealing by the person to whom the duty is owed. ‘The obligation not to profit from a position of trust, or, as it sometimes relevant to put it, not to allow a conflict to . .
Cited – Kelly v Cooper and Another PC 25-Nov-1992
There was a dispute between a client and an estate agent in Bermuda. The client sued the estate agent for damages for breach of duty in failing to disclose material information to him and for putting himself in a position where his duty and his . .
Cited – J J Harrison v Harrison 2002
A company director, having concealed relevant information from the board, obtained company property at a substantial undervalue. . .
Cited – Remon v City of London Real Property Co Ltd CA 1921
The court was asked whether the plaintiff, a tenant of rooms to which (once enacted) the Act of 1920 applied and who had been excluded from possession by the landlord’s re-entry on the day that the Act came into force following service of a notice . .
Cited – Javad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .
Cited – Sopwith v Stuchbury 1983
The tenant had been allowed into occupation of residential property pending agreement of the terms of a tenancy. He argued that he was a tenant at will.
Held: He was a mere licensee, and so was not entitled to go back on an agreed rent . .
Cited – Isaac v Hotel de Paris Ltd 1960
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Gibson v Douglas and Another CA 8-Dec-2016
Appeal against rejection of claim for damages for wrongful eviction and damages to goods.
Held: The judge had found not that the defendant had failed to give appropriate notice, but that he had not been personally involved other than as an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Housing

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185053

Wilson v Truelove: ChD 25 Mar 2003

The claimants requested a declaration that an option to repurchase land was void under the 1964 Act.
Held: The option to repurchase land was prima facie void. The right arose on the coming into existence of the agreement, or at the latest on the original purchase. The defendants sought assistance in equity under an estoppel by convention. The fact that the defendant’s right arose under statute did not prevent equity overriding that right. To establish an estoppel generally it was necessary to identify some unconscionable conduct on the part of the defendant. None was shown here. To establish an estoppel by convention, there was no requirement for unconscionable behaviour, but it was necessary to show some common mistake as to the meaning of the contract, followed by a course of conduct establishing reliance upon that conventional interpretation. That was absent here. The parties were merely mistaken.

Judges:

Simon Berry QC

Citations:

Times 21-Feb-2003, Gazette 13-Mar-2003, Gazette 10-Apr-2003, [2003] EWHC 750 (Ch), [2003] 23 EG 136, [2003] 2 EGLR 63, [2003] 10 EG 164, [2003] WTLR 609

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 9(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Adams v Lindsell KBD 5-Jun-1818
No Contract by Post until Acceptance Received
The defendant sent his offer of wool for sale to the plaintiff by post. The plaintiff’s acceptance was at first misdirected. Before receiving the reply the defendant had sold the wool elsewhere, but this was only after he would have received the . .
Cited – Crabb v Arun District Council CA 23-Jul-1975
The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .
Cited – Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd (in Liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd CA 1982
The court explained the nature of an estoppel by convention.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘The doctrine of estoppel is one of the most flexible and useful in the armoury of the law. But it has become overloaded with cases. That is why I have not gone . .
Cited – Keen v Holland CA 1984
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 . .
Cited – Shah v Shah CA 10-Apr-2001
The court was asked as to the enforceability of a document under the terms of which the defendants were to make a payment of pounds 1.5 million to the claimant. The document was described as a deed and provided for each defendant to sign in the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Taylor v Couch ChD 1-Mar-2012
The case raised the question of law involving the application of the rule against perpetuities to what, on the claimant’s case, is a right of pre-emption created before the coming into force in 2010 of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Equity, Estoppel

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180367

Specialist Group International Ltd v Deakin and Another: CA 23 May 2001

Law upon res judicata – action estoppel and issue estoppel and the underlying policy interest whereby there is finality in litigation and litigants are not vexed twice on the same matter.
(May LJ) ‘the authorities taken as a whole tend to encourage elaborate technical submissions which many percipient non-lawyers would scarcely understand. Cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel are not readily understandable phrases to a non-lawyer. It should not be necessary to have to pick for hours over the precise text of a dozen or so law reports to find out what in the end is reasonably straightforward and understandable law capable of being simply expressed. I would try to express it simply as follows.
If a claim has been explicitly determined in previous concluded proceedings between the same parties, that claim cannot be raised again, other than on an appeal, unless there is fraud or collusion. If a necessary element of a claim has been explicitly determined in previous concluded proceedings between the same parties, that issue cannot be raised again, if, as is likely but not inevitable, it would be an abuse to raise that issue again. This may also extend to an implicitly necessary element of the previous determination. The previous determination may include a settlement. If a claim or issue has not been determined in previous concluded proceedings between the same parties, there may nevertheless be circumstances in which, as a matter of public and private interest on a broad merits-based procedural judgment, it would be an abuse for a party to raise that claim or issue. Such circumstances may depending on the facts, exist where the litigant could and should have raised the matter in question in earlier concluded proceedings. There may in particular cases be other elements of abuse, including oppression of another party: but abuse of process is a concept which defies precise definition in the abstract. The court will only stop a claim as an abuse after most careful consideration.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous And Lord Justice May

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 777

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mills v Cooper QBD 1967
Two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against the defendant for offences under section 127 of the Highways Act 1959 namely that of being a gypsy and, without lawful excuse, camping on a highway. The first proceedings were brought in respect . .
Cited – Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
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. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Cited – Arnold v National Westminster Bank Plc HL 1991
Tenants invited the court to construe the terms of a rent review provision in the sub-underlease under which they held premises. The provision had been construed in a sense adverse to them in earlier proceedings before Walton J, but they had been . .
Cited – Bradford and Bingley Building Society v Seddon and Hancock; Walsh and Rhodes (Trading As Hancocks (a Firm) CA 11-Mar-1999
There was an unsatisfied judgment on a claim by a defendant in an earlier action against a third party. In a subsequent action against the defendant the latter issued third party proceedings against the original and different third parties.
Cited – Kirin Amgen Inc v Boehringer Mannheim GmbH 1997
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Sweetman v Nathan and others CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant had been engaged with his solicitor in a fraudulent land transaction. He now sought to sue the solicitor for negligence. The solicitor replied that the claimant was unable to rely upon his own unlawful act to make a claim.
Held: . .
See Also – Deakin and Others v Faulding and Others; Specialist Group International Ltd v Deakin and Others; etc ChD 31-Jul-2001
Directors of a company authorised payment of bonuses, but the power to do so lay with the shareholders, not the directors. However, the beneficial owner of a share held for him by a nominee could give assent to a motion of the company at a general . .
Cited – Matalan Retail Ltd v Revenue and Customs ChD 5-Aug-2009
The taxpayer imported swimwear for sale. The respondent had incorrectly indicated that such swimwear had one classification. The claimant sought to prevent the respondent reclassifying the goods, saying that they had made given binding tariff . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177323

Rothschild Asset Management Limited v Ako: CA 1 Mar 2002

The applicant had, in earlier proceedings before the Employment Tribunal, withdrawn issues she had raised. She now sought to pursue them, and the respondent asserted that she was estopped from doing so, and that the matter was res judicata. The chairman, having received a letter withdrawing the case, had entered the decision without hearing from either party, or investigating any evidence. The applicant had relied upon an out of date text book, understanding that she would be able to re-apply.
Held: Cause of action estoppel applied where the list of issues in the two actions were identical. Despite the Lennon case, the court could look behind a decision to examine the circumstances in which it had been made. Employment Tribunals differed on this issue from other courts, in not making a distinction between orders dismissing case, and discontinuances. Discontinuance does not release or discharge the cause of action, and in employment tribunal cases the court could look behind the order to see if that was the case.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, And, Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

Times 02-Apr-2002, Gazette 25-Apr-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 236, [2002] 2 All ER 693, [2002] ICR 899, [2002] IRLR 348

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Tribunals (Constitution etc) Regulations 1993 13(2)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Barber v Staffordshire County Council CA 29-Jan-1996
A dismissal of a claim without consideration by the tribunal created an issue estoppel. Issue estoppel rules apply equally to Industrial Tribunal decisions as elsewhere. Redundancy claim once withdrawn on one ground could not be revived on another. . .
Cited – Arnold v National Westminster Bank Plc HL 1991
Tenants invited the court to construe the terms of a rent review provision in the sub-underlease under which they held premises. The provision had been construed in a sense adverse to them in earlier proceedings before Walton J, but they had been . .
Per incuriam – Sajid v Sussex Muslim Society 2002
It was not an abuse of process to seek to pursue an employment claim in the High Court where the claim begun in the tribunal was for breach of contract, unfair dismissal or redundancy, and the total amount of the claim might exceed the tribunal’s . .
Cited – Lennon v Birmingham City Council 2001
. .
Appeal from – Ako v Rothschild Asset Management Ltd, Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company EAT 8-Feb-2001
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Ako v Rothschild Asset Management Ltd, Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company EAT 8-Feb-2001
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
Cited – Verdin v Harrods Ltd EAT 21-Dec-2005
EAT Contract of Employment – Damages for breach of contract – The Tribunal Chairman erred in law in concluding that Mrs Verdin’s breach of contract claim should be dismissed.
Rule 25 of the Employment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Estoppel

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167718

LE Walwin and Partners Limited v West Sussex County Council: ChD 1975

The parties disputed the extent of a public bridleway. The definitive map appeared to show a bridleway stopping at a point where it met a footpath. However the definitive statement described the bridleway as running ‘to the foreshore’ ie. beyond the point at which the bridleway met the footpath.
Held: The bridleway extended to the foreshore. The unequivocal statement prevailed because of inconsistencies in the map. In considering the definitive map of right of way, the map and statement must be read together. The map and statement when read together demonstrated that the right of way extended to the foreshore. It is necessary for the interested member of the public only to establish that the map in general shows a path which the statement purports to particularise.
The correct approach to interpretation of the definitive map and statement must be a practical one. They should be examined together with a view to resolving the question whether they are truly in conflict or the statement can properly be read as describing the position of the right of way. If they are in conflict, then the map must take precedence since the discretionary particulars depend for their existence upon the conclusiveness of the obligatory map. Unless the statement can properly be interpreted as describing the same footpath as that shown on the map, then the statement cannot be regarded as conclusive evidence of the position of the footpath shown on the map.
The plaintiffs now claimed to a right to maintain a barrier on certain road on ground of an only earlier partial dedication of it, but was faced with a judgment in 1958, in which the predecessor in title of the plaintiff had been a party to proceedings, before the Quarter Sessions over the status of the same road, and in which the said predecessor in title failed to raise the question of the right to maintain such a barrier.
Held: The failure of the said predecessor in title, and in this context a privy to the present plaintiff, to raise the question estopped the plaintiff from raising the said question and the action failed. It is not open for a party to litigation to raise, subsequent to adjudication, a matter which could, and should have been brought forward in the course of that litigation, after the creation of an ‘estoppel per rem judicatam’

Judges:

Plowman V-C

Citations:

[1975] 3 All ER 604

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ernstbrunner v Manchester City Council and Another Admn 16-Dec-2009
The appellant challenged by case stated a refusal of the Crown Court to order removal of a gate which he said obstructed a public footpath. The land-owner had persuaded the magistrates that the gate was not on the line of the footpath. The claimant . .
Cited – Norfolk County Council, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 10-Feb-2005
The claimant sought to challenge the confirmation of a public footpath. Pitchford J described how the court should interpret the definitive map made under the 1981 Act: ‘The correct approach to interpretation of the definitive map and statement must . .
Cited – Price and Another v Nunn ChD 11-May-2012
Applications were made to strike out parts of a Defence and Counterclaim. The relevant parts of this pleading assert the existence of a private right of way, or a public right of way, in either case with or without vehicles, over certain land owned . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Estoppel

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.384349

Gribbon v Lutton and Another: CA 19 Dec 2001

The defendant solicitors acted in obtaining and holding a deposit on the sale of land. They issued interpleader proceedings which decided that the deposit was payable to the purchaser. The vendor then sued the solicitors in negligence. The solicitors were faced with two courts making different and contradictory decisions on the same facts as to the destination of the deposit, and claimed that the decision of the first court was incorrect.
Held: The solicitor had initiated the interpleader proceedings, and could not be heard to complain about it. The application was an abuse of process. The claim in negligence succeeded because the defendants had failed to secure for their client an enforceable bipartite agreement under which the deposit would be forfeit if the prospective purchaser did not proceed. No issue estoppel arose in their favour because they were not parties in any real sense to the original proceedings.
Laddie J, sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal, said (as to Chillingworth): ‘All the judge was saying was that if that [the 10 July document] had been a binding contract, suitable wording could have been inserted into it to make the deposit non-refundable.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Mr Justice Laddie

Citations:

Times 04-Dec-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1956, [2002] 2 EGCS 100, [2002] NPC 2, [2002] QB 902, [2002] PNLR 19, [2002] 2 WLR 842, [2002] Lloyd’s Rep PN 272

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
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. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
Explained – Chillingworth v Esche CA 1923
The purchasers agreed in writing to purchase land ‘subject to a proper contract to be prepared by the vendors’ solicitors’ accepting andpound;240 ‘as deposit and in part payment of the said purchase money’. A contract was prepared by the vendor’s . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sharma and Another v Simposh Ltd CA 23-Nov-2011
The parties created an oral (and therefore void) contract for a development, the claimants paid a deposit, expressed to be non-refundable, and the defendant builders completed the building work. The buyers backed out. The developer now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice, Estoppel

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167323

Lloyd and others v Dugdale and Another: CA 21 Nov 2001

The claimants asserted a right to possession of land, and the defendant resisted, claiming a proprietary estoppel. A predecessor had intended to grant a sub-lease to the defendant, who had arranged for his company JAD Ltd to execute major works on the strength of that promise. JAD was given permission to store items there, but JAD Ltd took up possession. The sub-lease was never signed. The head-lease was assigned to the claimants, subject to any rights of the defendants.
Held: No notice was effective. Whatever estoppel arose, was in favour of JAD, not his company, and it was in possession, not him. The assignment defeated the claim of JAD Ltd by section 20. No constructive trust arose, because the claimant’s conscience was not deemed to be affected.
The court set out the principles applying: ‘(1) Even in a case where, on a sale of land, the vendor has stipulated that the sale shall be subject to stated possible incumbrances or prior interests, there is no general rule that the court will impose a constructive trust on the purchaser to give effect to them.
(2) The court will not impose a constructive trust in such circumstances unless it is satisfied that the conscience of the estate owner is affected so that it would be inequitable to allow him to deny the claimant an interest in the property.
(3) In deciding whether or not the conscience of the new estate owner is affected in such circumstances, the crucially important question is whether he has undertaken a new obligation, not otherwise existing, to give effect to the relevant encumbrance or prior interest. If, but only if, he has undertaken such a new obligation will a constructive trust be imposed.
(4) Notwithstanding some previous authority suggesting the contrary, a contractual licence is not to be treated as creating a proprietary interest in land so as to bind third parties who acquire the land with notice of it, on this account alone: see Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold . .
(5) Proof that the purchase price by a transferee has been reduced upon the footing that he would give effect to the relevant encumbrance or prior interest may provide some indication that the transferee has undertaken a new obligation to give effect to it: see Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold . . However, since in matters relating to the title to land certainty is of prime importance, it is not desirable that constructive trusts of land should be imposed in reliance on inferences from ‘slender materials’.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Mummery, And, Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

Gazette 06-Dec-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1754, [2002] 2 PandCR 13, [2001] 48 EGCS 129, [2001] NPC 168, [2002] WTLR 863

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 20(1) 70(1)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold (1) CA 27-Oct-1987
Houses in Kensington were let together for a term of just over 50 years. There was just one title for the headlease. Informal subleases of parts had been granted granted at no rent. After several dealings with the titles, and the plaintiffs came to . .
Applied – Strand Securities Ltd v Caswell CA 2-Feb-1965
The leaving of furniture in a flat or having a key to the flat or making occasional use of it was not enough to constitute actual occupation. Where A permits B to occupy land on B’s own behalf by way of gratuitous licence, A’s capacity as licensor . .
Cited – Williams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland HL 19-Jun-1980
Wife in Occupation had Overriding Interest
The wife had made a substantial financial contribution to the purchase price of the house which was registered only in her husband’s name, and charged to the bank. The bank sought possession. The wife resisted saying that she had an overriding . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chaudhary v Yavuz CA 22-Nov-2011
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel, Land, Contract, Trusts

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.166930

Campbell v Griffin and others: CA 27 Jun 2001

Judges:

The President, Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Robert Walker

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 990, [2001] NPC 102, (2001) 82 P and CR DG23, [2001] WTLR 981

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed CA 22-Feb-2002
The claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel against the respondents. He had worked for the deceased over many years, for little payment, and doing more and more for her. Though he still worked full time at first, he came to spend nights at the . .
Cited – Thorner v Major and others CA 2-Jul-2008
The deceased had written a will, revoked it but then not made another. The claimant had worked for the deceased understanding that property would be left to him, and now claimed that the estate property was held under a trust for him.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Land

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160062

Shah v Shah: CA 10 Apr 2001

The court was asked as to the enforceability of a document under the terms of which the defendants were to make a payment of pounds 1.5 million to the claimant. The document was described as a deed and provided for each defendant to sign in the presence of a witness. In the event, although the ‘witness’ signed shortly after the defendants, he did so without having been present when they signed. When, therefore, the claimant brought proceedings against them, the defendants disputed the claim on the basis that the ‘deed’ had not been validly executed.
Held: The defendants were estopped from denying that they had signed the document in the witness’s presence. Public policy could not be used to disallow a party from asserting that a deed was valid despite the fact that the signature had not been properly witnessed, even though it was in the nature of the deed that such witnessing was required by law. Here the witness signature had not been present when he added his signature. The circumstances which might give rise to such a claim would often be solely with the party seeking to avoid liability under a deed, and being permitted to deny his deed would lead to uncertainty and fraud. The party had presented it as his own and properly attested deed and could be estopped from denying it.
Pill LJ said: ‘I bear in mind the clarity of the language of section 1(2) and (3) and also that the requirement for attestation is integral to the requirement for signature in that the validity of the signature is stipulated to depend on the presence of the attesting witness. I also accept that attestation has a purpose in that it limits the scope for disputes as to whether the document was signed and the circumstances in which it was signed. The beneficial effect of the requirement for attestation of the signature in the manner specified in the statute is not in question. It gives some, but not complete, protection to other parties to the deed who can have more confidence in the genuineness of the signature by reason of the attestation. It gives some, but not complete, protection to a potential signatory who may be under a disability, either permanent or temporary. A person may aver in opposition to his own deed that he was induced to execute it by fraud, misrepresentation or, as was unsuccessfully alleged in the present case, duress and the attestation requirement is a safeguard.
I have, however, come to the conclusion that there was no statutory intention to exclude the operation of an estoppel in all circumstances or in circumstances such as the present. The perceived need for formality in the case of a deed requires a signature and a document cannot be a deed in the absence of a signature. I can detect no social policy which requires the person attesting the signature to be present when the document is signed. The attestation is at one stage removed from the imperative out of which the need for formality arises. It is not fundamental to the public interest, which is in the requirement for a signature. Failure to comply with the additional formality of attestation should not in itself prevent a party into whose possession an apparently valid deed has come from alleging that the signatory should not be permitted to rely on the absence of attestation in his presence. It should not permit a person to escape the consequences of an apparently valid deed he has signed, representing that he has done so in the presence of an attesting witness, merely by claiming that in fact the attesting witness was not present at the time of signature. The fact that the requirements are partly for the protection of the signatory makes it less likely that Parliament intended that the need for them could in all circumstances be used to defeat the claim of another party.
Having regard to the purposes for which deeds are used and indeed in some cases required, and the long-term obligations which deeds will often create, there are policy reasons for not permitting a party to escape his obligations under the deed by reason of a defect, however minor, in the way his signature was attested. The possible adverse consequences if a signatory could, months or years later, disclaim liability upon a purported deed, which he had signed and delivered, on the mere ground that his signature had not been attested in his presence, are obvious. The lack of proper attestation will be peculiarly within the knowledge of the signatory and, as Sir Christopher Slade observed in the course of argument, will often not be within the knowledge of the other parties.
In this case the document was described as a deed and was signed. A witness, to whom the third and fourth defendants were well known, provided a form of attestation shortly afterwards and the only failure was that he did so without being in the presence of the third and fourth defendants when they signed.’

Judges:

Pill LJ, Tuckey LJ and Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

Times 15-May-2001, [2002] QB 35, [2001] EWCA Civ 527, [2001] 3 WLR 31, [2001] 4 All ER 138

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Leave given – Shah v Shah and others CA 7-Mar-2001
Renewed application for permission to appeal – whether deed validly signed. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wilson v Truelove ChD 25-Mar-2003
The claimants requested a declaration that an option to repurchase land was void under the 1964 Act.
Held: The option to repurchase land was prima facie void. The right arose on the coming into existence of the agreement, or at the latest on . .
Cited – Cobbe v Yeomans Row Management Ltd and Others ChD 25-Feb-2005
Principles for Proprietary Estoppel
A developer claimed to have agreed that upon obtaining necessary planning permissions for land belonging to the respondents, he would purchase the land at a price reflecting its new value. The defendant denied that any legally enforceable agreement . .
Cited – Actionstrength Limited v International Glass Engineering In Gl En SpA and others HL 3-Apr-2003
Actionstrength agreed with Inglen to provide construction staff to build a factory for St-Gobain. Inglen failed to pay. Actionstrength claimed against for the amount due. Inglen went into liquidation. The claim was now against St-Gobain. The claim . .
Cited – Iesini and Others v Westrip Holdings Ltd and Others ChD 16-Oct-2009
The claimants were shareholders in Westrip, accusing the Defendant directors of deliberately engaging in a course of conduct which has led to Westrip losing ownership and control of a very valuable mining licence and which, but for their . .
Cited – No1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd ChD 6-Oct-2016
Consent to assignment – delay
Tenants under long residential leases challenged the refusal of the landlord to consent to particular assignments of apartments. The leases contained provisions saying that such consent was not to be unreasonably withheld. The landlord now appealed . .
Explained – Briggs and Others v Gleeds (Head Office) and Others ChD 15-Apr-2014
The court was asked whether certain documents constituting a pension scheme had been effectively executed. They had been signed, but the signatures lacked the necessary witnessing. The scheme members claimed estoppel against the signatories.
Distinguished – Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh and Others ChD 21-Jul-2014
The defendants had charged a property to the claimant bank to secure a guarantee of borrowings. The signatures were not witnessed as required under section 1(3) of the 1989 Act, and there were other misdescriptions. The bank sought a declaration as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Estoppel

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147505

Baird Textile Holdings Limited v Marks and Spencer Plc: CA 28 Feb 2001

The court considered the requirements to establish a proprietary estoppel: ‘It is on authority an established feature of both promissory and conventional estoppel that the parties should have had the objective intention to make, affect or confirm the legal relationship.’ The court also considered the requirements to be established for the creation of a contract: ‘For a contract to come into existence, there must be both (a) an agreement on essentials with sufficient certainty to be enforceable and (b) an intention to create legal relations.
Both requirements are normally judged objectively. Absence of the former may involve or be explained by the latter. But this is not always so. A sufficiently certain agreement may be reached, but there may be either expressly (i.e. by express agreement) or impliedly (e.g. in some family situations) no intention to create legal relations.
An intention to create legal relations is normally presumed in the case of an express or apparent agreement satisfying the first requirement: see Chitty on Contracts (28th edition) vol 1, para 2 – 146. It is otherwise, when the case is that an implied contract falls to be inferred from a party’s conduct: Chitty, para 2 – 147. It is then for the party asserting such a contract to show the necessity for implying it. As Morison J said in his paragraph 12(1), if the parties would or might have acted as they did without any such contract, there is no necessity to imply any contract. It is merely putting the same point another way to say that no intention to make any such contract will then be inferred.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Mance

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 274

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Koeller and Another v Coleg Elidyr (Camphill Communities Wales) Ltd CA 12-Jul-2005
The applicants occupied a house as licensees. An order for possession was made against them. The company was a charitable company set up to provide accomodation in communities for handicapped adults. The workers in the communities were not formally . .
Cited – West Bromwich Albion Football Club Ltd v El-Safty QBD 14-Dec-2005
The claimant sought damages from the defendant surgeon alleging negligent care of a footballer. The defendant argued that he had no duty to the club as employer of his patient who was being treated through his BUPA membership. It would have created . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147456

London Borough of Hillingdon v ARC Limited (No 2): CA 16 Jun 2000

The council entered upon land belonging to the company in accordance with the compulsory purchase procedures in 1982, but the company did not bring its claim for compensation until 1992. The council said the were out of time.
Held: Section 9 applies to claims for compensation for compulsory purchase. The mere fact that a party has continued to negotiate with the other party about the claim after the limitation period had expired, without anything being agreed about what happens if the negotiations break down, cannot give rise to a waiver or estoppel.

Judges:

Arden, Waller, Swinton Thomas

Citations:

[2000] 3 EGLR 97, [2000] EWCA Civ 191

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 9, Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – London Borough of Hillingdon v ARC Limited CA 7-Apr-1998
The company sought compensation for land taken under compulsory purchase powers by the defendants several years before. It now appealed against the defeat of its claim as time-barred.
Held: The appeal failed. The limitation period for a claim . .

Cited by:

Cited – BP Oil UK Ltd v Kent County Council CA 13-Jun-2003
BP sought compensation after its land had been acquired compulsorily. The council said its claim was time barred. BP appealed from the Lands Tribunal, saying an agreement with the Authority had kept its claim alive.
Held: The fact of entry did . .
Cited – Super Chem Products Limited v American Life and General Insurance Company Limited and Others PC 12-Jan-2004
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) A fire occurred at premises in which the stock was insured under two policies. Both insurers denied the claims alleging arson, and that it was out of time. The claimant said that the . .
Cited – Legal Services Commission v Rasool CA 5-Mar-2008
The defendant had in 1993 obtained legal aid. Work was done but the certificate was then revoked. The Commission sought repayment of the sums paid on account to his solicitors. He replied that the claim was out of time. The Commission argued that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation, Estoppel

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147224

Re The Bahia and San Francisco Railway Co Ltd v Trittin and others: CA 1868

Miss Trittin left her share certificates with a broker. A forged transfer together with the certificates, was lodged with and with registered by the company. The new certificates certified that the named person as registered holder. He then sold them to innocent purchasers who in turn lodged transfers and certificates and obtained certificates in their own names. The company had become obliged to restore Miss Trittin’s name to the register but refused to recognise the innocent purchasers as shareholders. A special case was stated for the opinion of the Court between the innocent purchasers as claimants and the company for the purpose of determining the amount of damages (if any) which the company was liable to pay them respectively.
Held: The claimant succeeded.
Lord Cockburn CJ: ‘This power of granting certificates is to give the shareholders the opportunity of more easily dealing with their shares in the market, and to afford facilities to them of selling their shares by at once showing a marketable title, and the effect of this facility is to make the shares of greater value. The power of giving certificates is, therefore, for the benefit of the company in general; and it is a declaration by the company to all the world that the person in whose name the certificate is made out, and to whom it is given, is a shareholder in the company, and it is given by the company with the intention that it shall be so used by the person to whom it is given, and acted upon in the sale and transfer of shares. It is stated in this case that the claimants acted bona fide, and did all that is required of purchasers of shares; they paid the value of the shares in money on having a transfer of the shares executed to them, and on the production of the certificates which were handed to them. It turned out that the transferors had in fact no shares, and that the company ought not to have registered them as shareholders or given them certificates, the transfer to them being a forgery. That brings the case within the principle of the decision in Pickard -v- Sears [6 AD and E 469] as explained by the case of Freeman -v- Cooke [2 Ex 654] that if you make a representation with the intention that it shall be acted upon by another, and he does so, you are estopped from denying the truth of what you represent to be the fact.’
Blackburn J referred to the Companies Act and said:- ‘The statute further provides that the company may give certificates specifying the shares held by the member; and the object of this provision is expressly stated to be that this certificate should be prima facie evidence of the title of the person named to the shares specified; and the company, therefore, by granting the certificate, do make a statement that they have transferred the shares specified to the person to whom it is given, and that he is the holder of the shares. If they have been deceived and the statement is not perfectly true, they may not be guilty of negligence, but the company and no-one else have power to enquire into the matter; and it was the intention of the legislature that these certificates should be documents on which buyers might safely act,’ and ‘ . . . it is quite clear that a statement of a fact was made by the company, on which the company, at the very least, knew that persons wanting to purchase shares might act.’
Lush J referred to the certificate given by the company to the fraudsters:- ‘And the claimants having acted on this statement by the company, there arises an estoppel as against the company, prohibiting them from denying that what it states is true. And the question then is, what does the certificate mean? Does it mean merely, that [the fraudsters’ names] are on the register, and the company have done their best to ascertain that they are entitled to the shares, but cannot say whether they are so entitled? Or does it amount to a statement that the company take upon themselves the responsibility of asserting that they are the registered shareholders entitled to the specific shares? I think the certificate must amount to the latter assertion. It is the company who are to keep and look after the register, and they are the only persons who have control over it, and they can refuse to register a person until he shews that he is legally entitled. Having, therefore, put the names of [the fraudsters] upon the register, and granted them a certificate, the company are estopped after that statement has been acted upon and cannot deny that those persons were the legal holders of the particular shares which have been transferred to the claimants. The claimants, therefore, are entitled to recover from the company the value of the shares at the time when they were deprived of them.’

Judges:

Lord Cockburn CJ, Blackburn J, Lush J, Mellor J

Citations:

(1868) LR 3 QB 584

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – The Balkis Consolidated Co Ltd v Tomkinson and Others HL 1893
Tomkinson, a stockbroker, bought shares was registered by the company and received share certificates, and then sold them. The company found that the vendor to him had previously sold the shares to someone else who had been duly registered. The . .
Cited – Cadbury Schweppes Plc and Another v Halifax Share Dealing Ltd and Another ChD 23-May-2006
Fraudsters had successfully contrived to sell shares of others, by re-registering the shares to new addresses and requesting new certificates. The question was which of the company, the company registrars and the stockbrokers should bear the loss. . .
Cited – Cadbury Schweppes Plc and Another v Halifax Share Dealing Ltd and Another ChD 23-May-2006
Fraudsters had successfully contrived to sell shares of others, by re-registering the shares to new addresses and requesting new certificates. The question was which of the company, the company registrars and the stockbrokers should bear the loss. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Estoppel

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.242171

Willis and Son v Willis: CA 1986

The appellants had resisted giving a flat, claiming a promissory estoppel based on the respondents having more than once said that the appellants could live in the premises rent free for as long as they needed. The appellants said that some pounds 1339.90 had been spent relying upon that promise. The appellants produced a letter given to their solicitor to support the particulars. The writer said he had carried out the works. He no longer had details, but could confirm the details from his ledgers. The letter was found to be a complete fiction. He had done no work, had no ledgers and had not been paid. Both appellants knew that it was wholly false.
Held: If the falsity of the Robins’ letter had not been discovered it would have been relied upon throughout the proceedings. ‘I find it difficult to see how there could be any more serious conduct than that. When a party comes to the Court and seeks to obtain from it equitable relief, it is accepted, as I have said, that he must come with clean hands. I accept also, as was submitted on behalf of the appellants, that not every item of misconduct can possibly be sufficient to deprive a party who seeks equity from being granted the relief he seeks. Some misconduct may be trivial. But when a party acts as these parties have done – and Joanna Willis must be regarded as having been concerned in this, albeit indirectly, in as much as the document was put forward on behalf of both the appellants – it seems to be impossible for this Court to do other than to take the most serious view of it and to decline to grant equitable relief even if, to which I say nothing because it does not arise on the view I take of this case, they would otherwise have been so entitled.’ (Sir John Donaldson MR) ‘The conduct of the appellants which has been disclosed in this case was such that no Court could, in my judgment, possibly grant equitable relief.’ and ‘When a person seeks the aid of the Court to obtain the Court’s assistance, via the principles of equity, to override somebody’s strict legal rights, it is clearly a case for the application of the maxim, as indeed is accepted by the appellants, ‘that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands’.’

Judges:

Parker LJ, Sir John Donaldson MR

Citations:

[1986] 1 EGLR 62

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gillett v Holt and Another CA 23-Mar-2000
Repeated Assurances Created Equitable Estoppel
Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
Cited – Gonthier and Another v Orange Contract Scaffolding Ltd CA 25-Jun-2003
The question of a proprietary estoppel as between landlord and tenant arose. An agreement had been reached subject to contract for the grant of a lease, with an option to purchase. The tenant was allowed into possession before the documentation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Trusts

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.183377

Regina v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Ex Parte F and I Services Ltd: Admn 14 Apr 2000

The Commissioners gave advice to a tax payer, upon which the taxpayer relied, but the advice was incorrect. The law under which public authorities can be held responsible in negligence for the exercise of statutory functions is rapidly developing, and it is not possible to say that a claim against the Commissioners could not succeed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Robert Walker, Lord Justice Sedley And Mr Justice Lightman

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-2000, Gazette 25-May-2000, [2002] HC Admin 327

Links:

Bailii

Negligence, Customs and Excise, Estoppel, Administrative

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140142

The Shackleford: CA 2 Jan 1978

The Notice of Readiness was to discharge at the port of Constanza and was required ‘vessel also having been entered at the Customs House and the laydays will then commence on the next business day, whether in berth or not, whether in port or not, whether in free pratique or not’. The vessel arrived in Constanza Roads, immediately giving NOR on 15 October, which notice was accepted by the receivers on the same day by endorsing ‘accepted’ upon it. Customs entry could not be obtained until the vessel berthed and this did not occur until 26 November. The arbitrator held that the charterers were estopped from denying that they had accepted the NOR and made a finding that the owners and/or Master relied upon the acceptance of the NOR by the receivers in that they made no attempt to procure an earlier berth, such as a bunkering or watering berth, so that Customs entry might be obtained at an earlier date. Sir David Cairns said: ‘Acceptance of a notice of any kind usually means acceptance of the notice as an effective notice. The experienced arbitrator and the experienced commercial judge interpreted this acceptance without any indication that it had occurred to them that it could have any other meaning. In my judgment they were right to do so.’

Judges:

Sir David Cairns

Citations:

[1978] 2 Lloyds Rep 155

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – The Shackleford ChD 1978
The charterers by the receivers had ‘accepted’ a notice of readiness which was ‘premature’ when given because customs entry had not been obtained as required by the relevant clause of the charterparty and so were estopped by their conduct from . .

Cited by:

Cited – Persimmon Homes (South Coast) Ltd v Hall Aggregates (South Coast) Ltd and Another TCC 10-Oct-2008
The parties had agreed for the sale of land under an option agreement. The builder purchasers now sought to exercise rights to adjust the price downwards.
Held: The provisions had been intended and had achieved a prompt and binding settlement . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Contract

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.277764

The Sennar (No 2): HL 1985

The Henderson v Henderson principle should only be applied where it is clear (i) that the decision or determination relied on was made by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction and (ii) the decision upon the issue later sought to be raised is a final and binding decision on the merits.

Judges:

Lord Brandon

Citations:

[1985] 1 WLR 490

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Henderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
Cited – Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2) HL 1966
An agency had to be proved in a search to identify an entity which the law recognised (a) existed and (b) was legally responsible for the acts in issue in the proceedings. The House was asked whether the fact that an issue had already been . .

Cited by:

Cited – Good Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA CA 24-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Estoppel

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.183513

Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v London Rent Assessment Committee Chairman: QBD 25 Feb 2005

The parties agreed in principle that there would be an application for planning permission, and that if granted the land would be bought and the profits shared. Considerable work was undertaken and permission achieved, but the seller then sought to vary the terms of the agreement.
Held: An estoppel had been created against the buyer. The minimum equity to do justice to Mr Cobbe required that he be awarded one-half of the increase in value of the property brought about by the grant of planning permission and that he be granted a lien over the property to secure that interest. He would have been entitled to relief on his constructive trust claim but that relief on the basis of proprietary estoppel was the more satisfactory way of satisfying the equity to which the facts of the case entitled him.

Judges:

Etherton J

Citations:

Unreported, 25 February 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At First Instance – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.276427

Porter v Secretary of State for Transport: LT 1995

A positive section 17 (or section 18) certificate has been issued on the basis that the relevant land would be developed, or could only be developed, in conjunction with other land in the vicinity. It was argued that no assumption arose as a matter of law that planning permission would be granted for such development of the other land.
Held: In such circumstances an issue estoppel arose so as to preclude the acquiring authority from reopening the issues of fact on the basis of which a section 18 certificate had been granted.

Judges:

Judge Marder QC

Citations:

[1995] 2 EGLR 175

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Porter v Secretary of State for Transport CA 1996
Land had been compulsorily acquired for a road. The plaintiff was granted on appeal under section 18 of the 1961 Act a certificate of appropriate alternative development in respect of the land acquired, namely that the land acquired would have been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages, Estoppel

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.372589

Schaefer v Schuman: PC 1972

(New South Wales – Australia) A promise to leave the property had been performed, and the issue was as to the relevance, if any, and the effect of an earier promise when the value of the devise was sought to be reduced by an order by way of financial provision under the New South Wales Family Provision on Inheritance legislation. The rights of the devisee were properly founded in contract. Held (majority, Lord Simon of Glaisdale dissenting on this as on the major point in the case). The case was indeed properly founded in contract, and, that being so, it was immune from the effect of an order under the family provision legislation.

Judges:

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

Citations:

[1972] AC 572

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Thorner v Major and others CA 2-Jul-2008
The deceased had written a will, revoked it but then not made another. The claimant had worked for the deceased understanding that property would be left to him, and now claimed that the estate property was held under a trust for him.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Wills and Probate, Contract, Commonwealth

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.324695

Re State of Norway’s Application (No 2): CA 1988

The basic requirement for an issue estoppel to arise was that ‘the earlier determination relied on as raising an issue estoppel shall have been fundamental to the decision first arrived at’. The Board did not accept that an issue estoppel is impossible if the first decision could not be appealed.

Judges:

May LJ, Balcombe LJ

Citations:

[1988] 3 WLR 603

Statutes:

Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Duedu v Yiboe PC 1961
. .
See Also – In re State of Norway’s Application (No 1) CA 1987
There were taxation proceedings in Norway. One question was whether the Norwegian taxpayer controlled a trust which owned some shares. Letters rogatory issued by the Norwegian Court requested the oral examination of two witnesses in the United . .

Cited by:

Cited – Good Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA CA 24-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an . .
Appeal from – In re Norway’s Applications HL 1990
The house considered appeals from the two earlier applications, upholding the first and reversing the second. . .
Cited – United States of America v Philip Morris Inc and others QBD 10-Dec-2003
Witness orders were sought in respect of professionals resident in England to support litigation in the US. They objected on the ground that the terms of the order sought suggested improper behaviour, and that an order would anticipate breach of . .
Appeal from – Re State of Norway’s Application (No 2) HL 1989
The government of Norway sought evidence here to support a claim for tax in Norway.
Held: The State of Norway’s application requesting the oral examination of two witnesses residing in England did not fall foul of the Revenue rule. A claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.188232

Walton v Walton: CA 14 Apr 1994

The mother had repeatedly promised to her son that he would inherit her farm in return for which he left school early and had worked for low wages. Her stock phrase to him had been: ‘You can’t have more money and a farm one day’.
Held: Hoffmann LJ said that to claim an estoppel based upon a promise: ‘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.’ However: ‘in many cases of promises made in a family or social context, there is no intention to create an immediately binding contract. There are several reasons why the law is reluctant to assume that there was. One which is relevant in this case is that such promises are often subject to unspoken and ill-defined qualifications. Take for example the promise in this case. When it was first made, Mrs Walton did not know what the future might hold. Anything might happen which could make it quite inappropriate for the farm to go to the plaintiff.
But a contract, subject to the narrow doctrine of frustration, must be performed come what may. This is why Mr Jackson, who appeared for the plaintiff, has always accepted that Mrs Walton’s promise could not have been intended to become a contract.
But none of this reasoning applies to equitable estoppel, because it does not look forward into the future and guess what might happen. It looks backwards from the moment when the promise falls due to be performed and asks whether, in the circumstances which have actually happened, it would be unconscionable for the promise not to be kept.’

Judges:

Hoffmann LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 14 April 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Thorner v Major and others HL 25-Mar-2009
The deceased had made a will including a gift to the claimant, but had then revoked the will. The claimant asserted that an estoppel had been created in his favour over a farm, and that the defendant administrators of the promisor’s estate held it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.374701

Armstrong v Sheppard and Short Ltd: CA 1959

The plaintiff had a path at the rear of his property. The defendant constructed a sewer under the path, and asked the plaintiff for permission. He gave it informally, not knowing at the time that he owned the land. The sewer was constructed. Though suffering no inconvenience, on discovering his ownership, the plaintiff requested the removal of the sewer and its manhole, and an associated injunction. The judge at trial found a trespass, but gave only nominal damages and refused an injunction.
Held: The plaintiff was not debarred from objecting when his acquiescence arose through ignorance. However the trespass was trivial, and no injunction was granted.
As to the cross appeal, though the trespass was forgiven by the consent, that could not answer the claim as to the continuing discharge since that would amount to an easement which would require a formal grant.
Lord Evershed MR said: ‘it is true to say that if a man, having a proprietary right, proves an infringement of that right, prima facie he is entitled to an injunction: but that needs some qualification. It is not a matter of unqualified right; and one ground for denying an injunction would be that the wrong done is, in the circumstances, trivial. That proposition is founded on the well-known case of Imperial Gas Light and Coke Co. (Directors) v. Broadbent . . The judge was here dealing with the claim as I have formulated it: and he came to the conclusion that the circumstances of this case were special, and, as his judgment shows, that the damage was trivial . . But there were other good grounds, and formidable grounds (as I think) for refusing the plaintiff an injunction. That he misled the defendants is beyond a peradventure. It is no less clear that he attempted to mislead the court. He asserted – contrary to the fact – that he had never had any conversation with the defendants about the matter at all; and in his evidence in chief he so swore, untruly. It is not, therefore, surprising that the judge came to the conclusion that he should grant no equitable relief; and in my judgment, on the facts of this case, he was well entitled to take that view.’

Judges:

Lord Evershed MR

Citations:

[1959] 2 QB 384, [1959] 2 All ER 651, [1959] 3 WLR 84, (1959) 123 JP 401, (1959) Sol Jo 508

Citing:

Cited – Imperial Gas Light and Coke Company v Broadbent HL 4-Aug-1859
If a Plaintiff applies for an injunction in respect of a violation of a common law right, and the existence of that right, or the fact of its violation is denied, he must establish his right at law, but having done that, he is, except under special . .

Cited by:

Cited – Pelling v Families Need Fathers Ltd CA 1-Aug-2001
The claimant, a member of the company, a charitable company limited by guarantee, sought a list of the company’s members. This was refused, and the court used a discretion not to order the list to be produced. The applicant sought to lead a group . .
Cited – St Pancras and Humanist Housing Association Ltd v Leonard CA 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought possession of a garage. The defendant claimed adverse possession.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against an order for possession failed. The defendant had attended a meeting where his behaviour had allowed other parties to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Equity, Nuisance, Torts – Other, Land

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.278877

Walton Stores (Interstate) Limited v Maher: 1988

(High Court of Australia) It would be unconscionable for a party to stand by in silence when it must have known that the other party was proceeding on an assumption that they had a binding agreement.

Citations:

[1988] 164 CLR 387

Cited by:

Cited – City Connect Management Ltd v Telia International Carrier UK and Another TCC 30-Jul-2004
The parties sought the expenses incurred in negotiating a development contract which failed before the documents were signed. . .
Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Commonwealth

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.276216

R E Jones Ltd v Waring and Gillow Ltd: HL 1926

In the case of a confidence man whose plan might have been frustrated by an unexpected contact between the two innocent parties; the House of Lords were divided as to whether that equivocal contact amounted to a representation. Viscount Cave LC thought that the court should find a way of preventing a party so using estoppel as to make a profit.

Judges:

Lord Shaw, Viscount Cave LC, Lord Carson, Lord Sumner

Citations:

[1926] AC 670

Statutes:

Bills of Exchange Act 1882 29(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd HL 6-Jun-1991
The plaintiff firm of solicitors sought to recover money which had been stolen from them by a partner, and then gambled away with the defendant. He had purchased their gaming chips, and the plaintiff argued that these, being gambling debts, were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Estoppel, Banking

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.259531

Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment: HL 1980

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.’

Judges:

Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Scarman, Lord Fraser, Lord Lane

Citations:

[1981] AC 578, [1980] 1 All ER 731, [1980] 2 WLR 379

Links:

Planning BlawG

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At first instance – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and others QBD 1977
The Council appealed against the quashing of its decision to impose certan conditions on a planning permission requiring the demolition of two hangars at the airfield subject of the application.
Held: The Council’s appeal failed.
Mr . .
Dictum Approved – Pyx Granite Co Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1958
Pyx Granite had the right to quarry in two areas of the Malvern Hills. The company required permission to break fresh surface on one of the sites.
Held: Conditions attached to the planning permission relating to such matters as the times when . .
Appeal from – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 14-Jul-1978
The Council had, when granting planning permission for the use of certain hangars on an airfield, required that on the end of the use, the hangars should be removed. That decision had been quashed by the repondent’s inspector, and again by the . .
Approved – Aston v Secretary of State for the Environment 9-Apr-1973
The court considered the planning effect of a new building on about a half of a site. Lord Widgery CJ: ‘. . The principle which one derives from the authorities and applies to the present case is that, where you have a new building erected, that . .
Approved – Stringer v Ministry of Housing and Local Government 1970
The material considerations to be allowed for by the local authority in exercising its planning functions are considerations of a planning nature, ‘all considerations relating to the use and development of land are considerations which may, in a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd) v East Sussex County Council Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd v Same HL 28-Feb-2002
The respondent company had asserted that the local authority had made a determination of the issue of whether electricity could be generated on a waste treatment site without further planning permission. The council said that without a formal . .
Approved – Grampian Regional Council v Secretary of State for Scotland HL 1983
The House endorsed the practice of imposing negative conditions in planning consents, upholding the validity of a condition that the development of the site could not commence until the road on the western boundary of the site had been closed by a . .
Cited – Williamson v Mid-Suffolk District Council LT 18-Jan-2006
LT COMPENSATION – planning permission – discontinuance order – preliminary issue – airfield – scope and effect of planning permissions granted under s73A of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – whether conditions . .
Cited – Land at 34 Manor Road, Pawlett, Bridgewater, Arlidge v Secretary of State for Environment and Sedgemoor District Council CA 9-Jun-1997
. .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v South Gloucestershire District Council and Others CA 29-Mar-2001
Where there was an agreement between an applicant and the planning authority under section 106 of the new Act, with respect the undertaking of work in return for the grant of planning permission, there was no requirement for there to be a direct . .
Cited – Regina (On the Application of Barker and Others) v Waverley Borough Council and Another CA 20-Apr-2001
A wartime aerodrome had continued to be used as such under a series of temporary permissions. The permission was continued after it was acquired by BAe, on conditions that use was personal to BAe and that it should revert to agricultural use after . .
Cited – Nourish v Adamson Admn 29-Jan-1998
. .
Cited – Regina v Bristol City Council ex parte Anderson Admn 9-Mar-1998
. .
Cited – Al Wood-Robinson v Secretary of State for Environment and Council of London Borough of Wandsworth Admn 3-Apr-1998
. .
Mentioned – Regina v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Granada Television Limited Admn 16-Oct-1998
A Scottish search warrant was executable in England since it counted as a summary act under repealed legislation, though was also subject to the protection in England against searches of journalist’s materials. . .
Cited – Regina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Andrew Tew; George Daniel Milne; and Steven Garner Admn 7-May-1999
An outline application for a shopping development, gave no details of the expected floor area, and nor was there an environmental assessment.
Held: The failure to give the floor area was not critical, but even at this stage the ommission of . .
Cited – Tarmac Materials Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Admn 6-Jul-1999
. .
Cited – Gosbee and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 20-Mar-2003
A bungalow was not demolished as required by a condition when planning permission for a new dwelling was given. An enforcement notice was issued requiring the demolition of the bungalow.
Held: ‘in determining whether the interference is . .
Cited – Pioneer Aggregates (UK) Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1985
The House considered the concept of a spent planning consent.
Held: This was a mineral operation and every shovelful dug amounted to another act of development. Therefore, although it had been begun, the planning permission was not spent and . .
Cited – Ranson, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State and Forest Heath District Council Admn 27-Nov-2003
. .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council, ex parte Monahan CA 1989
The Royal Opera House sought permission and listed building consents to carry out a re-development, extending and modernising the House raising it to international standards, and to develop the surrounding area consistently with that project. Parts . .
Cited – Jennings Motors Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and another CA 27-Nov-1981
The land owners had demolished a building and erected a new building on a small part of the entire site, but without obtaining planning permission. The local authority argued that this was a change of use and a breach of planning control.
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others HL 11-May-1995
Three companies had applied for permission to build retail food superstores in Witney. The Inspector had recommended Tesco’s proposal, but the respondent rejected it. Tesco’s had offered to provide by way of a section 106 agreement full funding for . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .
Cited – Regina v Broadland District Council St Matthew Society Limited; Peddars Way Housing Association; ex parte Christopher Robert Dove Richard William Harpley; Colin Wright; Admn 26-Jan-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Estoppel

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.183155

Latifi v Colherne Court Freehold Limited: 2003

Estoppel and waiver are open to the recipient of a notice (including a counter-notice) under 1993 Act, in the same way as they are open to the recipient of a notice (or indeed, a counter-notice) under Part II of the 1954 Act.

Judges:

Cooke J

Citations:

[2003] 1 EGLR 78

Cited by:

Cited – Lay and others v Ackerman and Another CA 4-Mar-2004
Notices had been served by tenants under the Acts. The properties were on a large estate where the freeholds had been divided and assigned to different bodies, and there were inconsistencies in identifying the landlords. The landlords served a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.214628

Penn-Texas Corporation v Murat Anstalt (No 2): CA 1964

The court considered a claim for an issue estoppel arising from a foreign judgment: ‘In my opinion a previous judgment between the same parties is only conclusive on matters which are conclusive and necessary to the decision. It is not conclusive on other matters which came incidentally into consideration in the course of the reasoning: see the Duchess of Kingston’s Case (1776) 20 ST 336 and Reg v Hutchings (1881) 6 QBD 300. One of the tests in seeing whether a matter was necessary to the decision, or only incidental to it, is to ask: Could the party have appealed from it? If he could have appealed and did not, he is bound by it, see Bader Bee v Habib Merican Noordin [1909] AC 615, 623 by Lord Macnaghten. If he could not have appealed from it (because it did not affect the order made), then it is only an incidental matter, not essential to the decision, and he is not bound’.

Judges:

Denning MR

Citations:

[1964] 2 QB 647

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kingston’s (Duchess) Case 1776
The judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is as a plea, a bar, or as evidence, conclusive between the same parties coming incidentaly in question in another court for a different purpose. The principle of . .
Cited – Regina v Hutchings 1881
The Local Board had been refused an order for recovery of a proportion of the expenses of sewering a property on the basis that the road was maintainable by the public at large. Years later the Board sought to recover paving expenses. It was held . .
Cited – Bader Bee v Habib Merican Noordin HL 1909
Where a party could have appealed against an earlier decision of a court, but did not, he would later be estopped from denying that decision. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Good Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA CA 24-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188234

Brisbane City Council v Attorney General for Queensland: PC 1978

Lord Wilberforce approved Somervell LJ’s words in Greenhalgh: ‘This is the true basis of the doctrine in Henderson v Henderson and it ought only to be applied when the facts are such as to amount to an abuse: otherwise there is a danger of a party being shut out from bringing forward a genuine subject of litigation.’

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce

Citations:

[1979] AC 411, [1978] 3 All ER 30, [1978] 3 WLR 299

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Citing:

Cited – Greenhalgh v Mallard CA 1943
The court said of certain pre-emption provisions: ‘in the case of the restriction of transfer of shares I think it is right for the court to remember that a share, being personal property, is prima facie transferable, although the conditions of the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hitchin Cow Commoners Trust, Re ChD 5-Dec-2001
Land was registered as a common. Rights had been created over the land under the 1882 Act after the Inclosure Acts. Were these rights in the nature of charitable trusts? No use of the land as a cow common had taken place with living memory, and most . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Cited – Brown v Rice and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The parties, the bankrupt and her trustee, had engaged in a mediation which failed at first, but applicant said an agreement was concluded on the day following. The defendants denied this, and the court as asked to determine whether a settlement had . .
Cited – Campbell v Leeds United Association Football Misc 3-Apr-2009
The claimant sought damages for psychiatric injury suffered when working for the defendant who replied that the matter had already been litigated in her claims in the Employment Tribunal, and that a cause of action estoppel applied.
Held: The . .
Cited – Sarwar v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (Rev 1) ChD 27-Jul-2011
The claimant appealed against a finding of indebtedness to the bank. He had said at trial that the bank had been charging interest at 25%. The bank denied this, but after trial it became clear that he had been correct. The bank argued for abuse of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.181058

Humphries v Humphries: CA 1910

The plaintiff began an action against the defendant for arrears of rent, and succeeded. Arrears developed again, and the plaintiff began this second action. The defendant now pleaded that the action was barred as having no sufficient memorandum to satisfy the Statute of Frauds.
Held: The plea was one which could have been raised in the first action, and judgment having been given, the defendant was estopped from raising that issue now.

Citations:

[1910] 2 KB 531, [1908-10] All ER rep 733, [1910] 79 LJKB 919, [1910] 103 LT 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bank of Scotland v Wright ChD 1991
A director of two companies (one a subsidiary of the other) had given the bank a written guarantee of the liability of the holding company (only); but under an ‘interavailable’ facility backed by cross-guarantees (by the companies) the holding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.180647

Watson v Goldsbrough: 1986

Licensees of land owned by the wife’s parents agreed that an angling club could have fishing rights if they improved the ponds.
Held: The estoppel was fed when the licensees acquired the legal estate.

Citations:

[1986] 1 EGLR 265

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.553540

Sidney Bolsom Investment Trust Ltd v E Karmios and Co (London) Ltd: CA 1956

The tenants had intended to ask for a new tenancy of 14 years, but by mistake, the notice of request implied a new lease of seven years. The request nevertheless set out the duration of the proposed new tenancy. The tenants tried to bring in parol evidence to show the mistake. The tenant argued that the request was invalid because it was made under a mistake. The judge had admitted evidence of the mistake.
Held: The additional evidence was inadmissible.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘I do not think that that evidence was admissible. This case falls, to my mind, within the general principle that parol evidence cannot be admitted to add to, vary, or contract the terms of a written document. Once a tenant, whatever his inmost state of mind, has to all outward appearances made a valid request in the prescribed form setting out his proposals, he cannot thereafter rely on his own mistake to say that it was a nullity or invalid, no matter how important the mistake was.’ and
‘But in order to work as an estoppel, the representation must be clear and unequivocal, it must be intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on. And when I say it must be ‘intended to be acted upon,’ I would add that a man must be taken to intend what a reasonable person would understand him to intend. In short, the representation must be made in such circumstances as to convey an invitation to act on it.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1956] 1 QB 529, [1956] 1 All ER 536, [1956] 2 WLR 625

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 26

Cited by:

Cited – Gill v Woodall and Others ChD 5-Oct-2009
The claimant challenged her late mother’s will which had left the entire estate to a charity. She asserted lack of knowledge and approval and coercion, and also an estoppel. The will included a note explaining that no gift had been made because she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.374700

Cuthbertson v Irving: 24 Jun 1859

Martin B said: ‘There are some points in the law relating to estoppels which seem clear. First, when a lessor without any legal estate or title demises to another, the parties themselves are estopped from disputing the validity of the lease on that ground; in other words a tenant cannot deny his landlord’s title, nor can the lessor dispute the validity of the lease. Secondly, where a lessor by deed grants a lease without title and subsequently acquires one, the estoppel is said to be fed, and the lease and reversion then take effect in interest and not by estoppel . . .’

Judges:

Martin B

Citations:

[1859] EngR 767, (1859) 4 H and N 742, (1859) 157 ER 1034, (1859) 4 Hurl and N 742

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .
Appeal from – Cuthbertson v Irving 7-Jul-1860
Held: Decision affirmed. Neither the lessee nor the lessor can dispute one another’s title and if the lessor without a legal estate later acquires one, the estoppel is ‘fed’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Land

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.288119

Lim Teng Huan v Ang Swee Chuan: PC 8 Jan 1992

A deed evidencing an agreement could be used in evidence in court even though it might itself be void for uncertainty. A party to the deed was estopped from denying its contents. Having built a house upon one half of jointly owned land, and thus, having acknowledged the joint title, he was not free subsequently to deny that title.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jan-1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Estoppel, Contract, Commonwealth

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.83067

Chester-Le-Street District Council v Co-Operative Wholesale Society Ltd: CA 13 May 1998

Where application to Lands Tribunal for compensation after compulsory purchase and negotiations continued past limitation because of agreement to extend negotiations. Limitation waived.

Citations:

Gazette 13-May-1998

Statutes:

Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Estoppel

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79020

Dixon v Kennaway and Co: 1900

Farwell J said: ‘There is no doubt on the authorities that a certificate under the seal of the company estops the company from denying the title of a person who has accepted and acted on the certificate. In Knights -v- Wiffen [LR 5 QB 660 at 665] Blackburn J defines estoppel as follows: ‘Where one states a thing to another, with a view to the other altering his position, or knowing that, as a reasonable man, he will alter his position, then the person to whom the statement is made is entitled to hold the other bound, and the matter is regulated by the state of facts imported by the statement.’. I accept that as a good definition of estoppel . . ‘ and ‘It is plain that when Blackburn J uses the phrase ‘alter his position’ he does not mean that an active alteration is necessary, but that it is sufficient if the person to whom the statement is made rests satisfied with the position taken up by him in reliance on the statement, so that he suffers loss.’

Judges:

Farwell J

Citations:

[1900] 1 Ch 833

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Simm and Others v Anglo-American Telegraph Co CA 1879
A firm which had acted through nominees sought to raise an estoppel as to its status on the company registers.
Held: The nominees acquired a ‘title by estoppel’ against the company following the issue by the company of a share certificate to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cadbury Schweppes Plc and Another v Halifax Share Dealing Ltd and Another ChD 23-May-2006
Fraudsters had successfully contrived to sell shares of others, by re-registering the shares to new addresses and requesting new certificates. The question was which of the company, the company registrars and the stockbrokers should bear the loss. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Estoppel

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.242173

Fenner v Blake: 1900

The tenant told the landlord that he wanted to vacate the premises midway during the tenancy. Relying on the oral representation, the landlord sold the premises to a third party. The tenant subsequently refused to vacate the premises and claimed that there had been no consideration for his promise to quit the premises.
Held: The tenant was estopped from resiling from his promise to vacate the premises because the landlord had incurred a liability in relying on the tenant’s promise by entering into the sale and purchase agreement for the premises. In so doing, the landlord had rendered himself liable to an action at the suit of the purchaser if he was unable to provide vacant possession.

Citations:

[1900] 1 QB 426

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – King v Jackson (T/a Jackson Flower Company) CA 16-Jul-1997
The defendant appealed an award of pounds 11,000 damages for unlawful eviction of his tenant. The tenant had found herself unable to pay the rent and had given notice to quit. She was then told to leave immediately. The judge awarded statutory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.196695

Regina v Inhabitants of the Township of Hartington Middle Quarter: 22 Feb 1855

Coleridge J said: ‘The question then is, whether the former judgment concludes, not merely as to the point actually decided, but as to a matter which it was necessary to decide, and which was actually decided, as the groundwork of the decision itself, though not then directly the point at issue. And we think it does conclude to that extent . . Now, it cannot be said that the facts we are considering were merely collateral to the decision in the former case. The question then was where two unemancipated children were settled: and it was answered by showing that they were the legitimate issue of William and Esther, that is that these two were lawfully married, and the children born after, and that William was settled with the now appellants. Strike either of these facts out, and there is no ground for the decision: these facts therefore were necessarily and directly matter of enquiry. The question now is, where is Esther settled: and this is answered by showing the same two facts, the marriage of Esther and William, and the settlement of William, the two facts already decided. The judgments in the two cases therefore rest on the same foundation; which, having been settled in the first cannot be, as between the same parties, unsettled in the latter.’

Judges:

Coleridge J

Citations:

[1855] 4 ECB 780, [1855] EngR 264, (1855) 4 El and Bl 780, (1855) 119 ER 288

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Good Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA CA 24-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an . .
Cited – Sarwar v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (Rev 1) ChD 27-Jul-2011
The claimant appealed against a finding of indebtedness to the bank. He had said at trial that the bank had been charging interest at 25%. The bank denied this, but after trial it became clear that he had been correct. The bank argued for abuse of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.188231

Xtralite (Rooflights) Ltd v Hartington Conway Ltd: ChD 31 Jul 2003

The claimant appealed a refusal of the divisional director to substitute itself as applicant for a patent.
Held: The claimant had sold its assets to the respondent. The respondent claimed that an estoppel by representation existed, saying the claimant had made representations in the course of negotiations which it should not now be allowed to go back on. The monopoly rights of a patent holder would be conferred on ‘the proprietor of the patent’ under the Act. That did not mean only the registered proprietor and others who could show a title, including an inventor or assignee, could take action. An estoppel could act along a chain of title. There were no grounds to overturn the director’s decision.

Judges:

Pumfrey J

Citations:

Times 01-Oct-2003, Gazette 01-Oct-2003

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 61

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Xtralite Limited v Hartington Conway Limited (Patent) IPO 25-Oct-2002
PO Preliminary decision
After the normal evidence rounds in an entitlement dispute, the defendants sought to amend their pleadings, to submit additional evidence and to have a further witness available for . .
See Also – Xtralite Limited v Hartington Conway Limited (Patent) IPO 21-Feb-2003
When Hartington Conway bought Xtralite Industrial Rooflights Limited (XIRL), the sale agreement included rights to the patent applications in suit which had been applied for by XIRL. These patents related to a glazing system known as the Xlok which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Estoppel

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.186525

Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment: CA 14 Jul 1978

The Council had, when granting planning permission for the use of certain hangars on an airfield, required that on the end of the use, the hangars should be removed. That decision had been quashed by the repondent’s inspector, and again by the Divisional Court.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Lord Denning MR, in the minority on this point, postulated a broad general principle of estoppel or ‘blowing hot and cold’ in planning matters, saying that in 1962 the land owner had two inconsistent courses open to them: ‘ One was to apply for a grant of planning permission; the other was to rely on any existing use rights that might be attached to the site. Once they opted for planning permission – and accepted it without objection – they had made their bed and must lie on it. No doubt they did not know of the past history, but that was only Q because they did not choose to rely on it. They should not be allowed to bring it up again now.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Lawton and Browne LJJ

Citations:

[1978] 1 WLR 1241, [1979] 1 All ER 243

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and others QBD 1977
The Council appealed against the quashing of its decision to impose certan conditions on a planning permission requiring the demolition of two hangars at the airfield subject of the application.
Held: The Council’s appeal failed.
Mr . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1980
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Estoppel

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.238433

Alfred C Toepfer v Peter Cremer: CA 1975

The court was asked as to the effect of a telex sent by the buyers to the sellers, notifying them that if a notice of appropriation was not received by the following day, then the buyers would treat the sellers as being in default, under clause 26 of the GAFTA Form 100. In fact the sellers had one more day before the last day of shipment under the contract. No notice of appropriation was received, so the buyers sent a further telex in which they claimed a ‘price fixing’ by arbitration, nominated their arbitrator and invited the sellers to do likewise. It was argued that these actions of the buyers constituted a repudiation of the contract.
Held: The argument failed. On the facts overall, the buyers were not repudiating the contract. The telex giving notice of default was a ‘misapprehension as to the date of default’. He held that the actions of the buyers, taken as a whole, indicated that they were not repudiating the contract but ‘insisting on it and claiming damages under it.’
Scarman LJ pointed out that the arbitrators had not found the action of the buyers to be repudiatory of the contract. He concluded that it was not possible to infer, from the telex, that had the sellers given notice of appropriation on the following day (ie. the last day for shipment), then the buyers would have rejected it. Therefore the telex was not a repudiation.
Lord Denning MR discussed estoppel: ‘When one person has led another to believe that a particular transaction is valid and correct, he cannot thereafter be allowed to say that it is invalid and incorrect where it would be unfair or unjust to allow him to do so. It is a kind of estoppel. He cannot blow hot and cold according as it suits his book.’
The rule that a plaintiff cannot recover for a cause of action which only accrued after the writ was issued, was a rule of practice rather than a rule of law. Moreover, it was a rule of practice which could be departed from whenever the justice of the case required.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Orr LJ, Scarman LJ

Citations:

[1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 118

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Aker Oil and Gas Technology UK Plc v Sovereign Corporate Limited TCC 15-Jan-2002
The claimants sought payment of a bonus for having completed the construction of a vessel on time. They claimed that certificates estopped the defendants from admitting the bonus to be due. The defendants said the certificates had been issued in . .
Cited – Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors CA 15-Feb-2011
The claimant sought protection under the Act from his former employers’ behaviour in making repeated allegations against him. He appealed against the striking out of his claim.
Held: The appeal suceeded. The matter should go to trial. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Contract

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183019

Gillett v Holt and Another: ChD 18 Jun 1998

To establish a proprietary estoppel against the testator’s promise to leave items in his will, some overt act over and above a promise, and reliance upon that promise, must be shown in order to displace the testator’s right to change his will.

Judges:

Carnwath J

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jul-1998, Times 18-Jun-1998, Gazette 01-Jul-1998, [1998] 3 All ER 917

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gillett v Holt and Another CA 23-Mar-2000
Repeated Assurances Created Equitable Estoppel
Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Estoppel

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.80829

Campbell Discount Ltd v Gall: 1961

Citations:

[1961] 2 All ER 104, [1961] 1 QBD 431

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Car and Universal Finance Company Ltd v Caldwell CA 19-Dec-1963
The defendant had sold a car, taking as payment a cheque which was dishonoured; the plaintiffs later bought the car in good faith.
Held: The defendant was entitled to return of the car, even though the original purchaser had disappeared, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.466404

Skipton Building Society v Clayton: CA 1993

The wife claimed that the husband had forged the mortgage document. The Society said that she had allowed them to believe that she had consented to the charge. Slade LJ set out the principle: ‘in a case where A, the holder of the legal estate in land, has executed a mortgage of the land in favour of B, and C, who claims an interest in the land, has so conducted himself as to give B reasonable grounds for believing that C is consenting to the creation by A of a charge over the land in favour of B which will have priority to C’s interest, then C will be estopped from asserting that his interest has priority to B’s charge.’

Judges:

Slade LJ

Citations:

(1993) 66 P and CR 223

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 149(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-Operative Ltd SC 9-Nov-2011
The tenant appealed against an order granting possession. The tenancy, being held of a mutual housing co-operative did not have security but was in a form restricting the landlord’s right to recover possession, and the tenant resisted saying that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.448480

Trade Indemnity Co Ltd v Workington Harbour and Dock Board (No 2): HL 1938

The plaintiffs’ action was derived from a bond given by the defendants guaranteeing a contractor’s performance in building a dock for the plaintiffs. The bond provided that a certificate which complied with certain criteria would prove the amount due. In the action on the bond the plaintiffs relied upon a certificate which they said complied with the criteria and was thus conclusive evidence of the defendants’ liability under the bond. The action failed because the certificate did not specify a relevant act or default as required by the bond. The plaintiffs brought a second action relying, not upon the certificate, but upon the underlying facts, which they said amounted to breaches of the contract and thus triggered liability under the bond.
Held: The action failed on a plea of res judicata. Lord Atkin described the position: ‘The question will always be open whether the second action is for the same breach or breaches as the first, in which case the ordinary principles governing the plea of res judicata will prevail. In the present case, in my opinion, the plaintiffs are suing on precisely the same breaches as those in the first action, and for the same damages, though on different evidence. . I am satisfied that the first action raised the issue of all the contractors’ breaches, and treated, and meant to treat, the engineers’ certificate as conclusive proof of both the breaches and the losses arising therefrom. . The result is that the plaintiffs, who appear to have had a good cause of action for a considerable sum of money, fail to obtain it, and on what may appear to be technical grounds. Reluctant, however, as a judge may be to fail to give effect to substantial merits, he has to keep in mind principles established for the protection of litigants from oppressive proceedings. There are solid merits behind the maxim nemo bis vexari debet pro eadem causa.’

Judges:

Lord Atkin

Citations:

[1938] 2 All ER 101

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Trade Indemnity Co Ltd v Workington Harbour and Dock Board HL 1937
The House held that a loan of andpound;45,000 made by a building owner to a building contractor did not constitute an agreement ‘for any alteration in or to’ the building contract which the company had guaranteed. The question was whether it was . .

Cited by:

Cited – Coke-Wallis, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Chartered Accountants In England and Wales SC 19-Jan-2011
The appellant chartered accountant had been convicted in Jersey after removing documents from his offices relating to a disputed trust and in breach of an order from his professional institute. The court now considered the relevance and application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.428359

The Vistafjord: CA 1988

A common assumption which was known to be so by both parties and upon which both acted, was enough to create an estoppel: Bingham LJ ‘Each [of the parties] was fully privy to the thinking of the other. Moreover we have very clear conduct crossing the line . . . This is not a case of inaction, but of action on both sides of which the other party was full cognizant’

Judges:

Bingham LJ

Citations:

[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 343

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2) CA 23-May-2006
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.242626

Cottingham v Earl of Shrewsbury: 1843

‘If a plaintiff can not get at his right without trying and deciding a case between Co-defendants the Court will try and decide that case, and the Co-defendants will be bound. But, if the relief given to the Plaintiff does not require or involve a decision of any case between Co-defendants, the Co-defendants will not be bound as between each other by any proceeding which may be necessary only to the decree the Plaintiff obtains’

Judges:

Sir James Wigram V-C

Citations:

(1843) 3 Hare 627

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sweetman v Nathan and others CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant had been engaged with his solicitor in a fraudulent land transaction. He now sought to sue the solicitor for negligence. The solicitor replied that the claimant was unable to rely upon his own unlawful act to make a claim.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186009

Munni Bibi v Tirloki Nath: PC 1900

(Year unknown) A res judicata estoppel will normally have effect between a plaintiff and defendant, but can also have effect between defendants. ‘In such a case three conditions are requisite: (1) There must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned; (2) It must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims and (3) The question between the defendants must have been judicially decided’.’

Citations:

(Unknown)

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Cited – Sweetman v Nathan and others CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant had been engaged with his solicitor in a fraudulent land transaction. He now sought to sue the solicitor for negligence. The solicitor replied that the claimant was unable to rely upon his own unlawful act to make a claim.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186010

re Queen’s Moat House Plc: ChD 5 Dec 2001

The interests of justice are unlikely to require a second investigation of facts, which have already been the subject matter of an exhaustive examination.

Judges:

Mr Justice Pumfrey

Citations:

Unreported, 5 December 2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Michael Hamilton Amiss, Jonathan Andrew Chapman, Roger Rex Ingles ChD 20-Mar-2003
The Secretary sought disqualification orders, under section 8 which left the court with a discretion as to whether an order should be made.
Held: It was not necessary to establish dishonesty to a Twinsectra standard to justify an order. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Estoppel

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186021

In re Thomas Christy Limited: ChD 1994

Findings by a Lloyds’ disciplinary committee could not give rise to an issue estoppel in later court proceedings.

Judges:

Mr Justice Jacob

Citations:

[1994] 2 BCLC 527

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Michael Hamilton Amiss, Jonathan Andrew Chapman, Roger Rex Ingles ChD 20-Mar-2003
The Secretary sought disqualification orders, under section 8 which left the court with a discretion as to whether an order should be made.
Held: It was not necessary to establish dishonesty to a Twinsectra standard to justify an order. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Insurance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186020

Attorney General of Hong Kong v Humphreys Estate (Queen’s Gardens) Ltd: PC 1987

An agreement in principle was marked ‘subject to contract’. The Government would acquire some flats owned the plaintiff Group of companies in return for the Government granting, inter alia, a lease to the Group of some Crown lands. The Government was allowed to and did take possession of the flats and spent money upon them and moved some civil servants into them, the Crown accordingly disposing of the premises where those civil servants had previously resided. On the other side of the bargain, the Government allowed the Group to enter the Crown land and to demolish buildings upon it. However, the requisite forms of documents were never executed
Held: Lord Templeman said: ‘The government acted in the hope that a voluntary agreement in principle expressly made ‘subject to contract’ and therefore not binding, would eventually be followed by the achievement of legal relationships in the form of grants and transfers of property. It is possible but unlikely that in circumstances at present unforeseeable a party to negotiations set out in a document expressed to be ‘subject to contract’ would be able to satisfy the court that the parties had subsequently agreed to convert the document into a contract or that some form of estoppel had arisen to prevent both parties from refusing to proceed with the transactions envisaged by the document.’

Judges:

Lord Templeman

Citations:

[1987] 1 AC 114

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Salvation Army Trustee Co Ltd v West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council 1980
Threatened with a road widening, the plaintiffs left their old property, and began to develop their new one, again, on land owned by the respondent. In practice it was negotiated as an exchange of properties. The negotiations were held ‘without . .

Cited by:

Cited – Confetti Records (A Firm), Fundamental Records, Andrew Alcee v Warner Music UK Ltd (Trading As East West Records) ChD 23-May-2003
An agreement was made for the assignment of the copyright in a music track, but it remained ‘subject to contract’. The assignor later sought to resile from the assignment.
Held: It is standard practice in the music licensing business for a . .
Cited – Gonthier and Another v Orange Contract Scaffolding Ltd CA 25-Jun-2003
The question of a proprietary estoppel as between landlord and tenant arose. An agreement had been reached subject to contract for the grant of a lease, with an option to purchase. The tenant was allowed into possession before the documentation was . .
Cited – Evans v James (Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Hopkin Deceased) CA 5-Jul-1999
Before the parties called evidence, and having read the papers, the court considered that there was no real defence shown, and invited submissions. Negotiations for the grant of a tenancy had been terminated by the sudden illness of the proposed . .
Cited – Cobbe v Yeomans Row Management Ltd and Others ChD 25-Feb-2005
Principles for Proprietary Estoppel
A developer claimed to have agreed that upon obtaining necessary planning permissions for land belonging to the respondents, he would purchase the land at a price reflecting its new value. The defendant denied that any legally enforceable agreement . .
Cited – London and Regional Investments Ltd v TBI Plc and Others CA 22-Mar-2002
TBI was a property investor and developer with several subsidiaries. It agreed to sell some to London and Regional. The agreement provided for the vendor and the purchaser to use reasonable endeavours to agree the terms of a joint venture agreement . .
Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Explained – JT Developments v Quinn and Another CA 1990
The plaintiff told the defendant it was willing to grant a lease on the same terms as those contained in a new tenancy that the plaintiff had recently granted to the tenant of a nearby shop, also owned by the plaintiff. The defendant carried out . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Commonwealth, Estoppel

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.183739

Ideal General Supply Co Ltd v Louis Edelson and Edelson (t/a Ideal Clothing Co): 1957

The plaintiff had started an action for passing off and slander in the county court. The county court judge declined jurisdiction on the basis he thought they were equity proceedings and the claimant withdrew the proceedings and started again in the High Court. The question was whether this created an estoppel
Held: It did not. Diplock J expressed no opinion on the view of the county court judge that he had no jurisdiction. Diplock J refused to award any damages because the plaintiff managed to put an end to the defendant’s passing-off by an injunction after 4 advertisements in a local evening newspaper and the plaintiff had suffered no damage at all. He was prepared to grant injunctive relief in respect of probable damage which would occur if the defendants continued their conduct.

Judges:

Diplock J

Citations:

[1957] RPC 252

Jurisdiction, Estoppel, Defamation, Damages

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.509128

Colt Industries v Sarlie (No. 2): CA 1966

Lord Denning MR discussed the status of a foreign judgment whilst under appeal: ‘The appeal itself does not render it not final and conclusive, nor should the possibility of leave to appeal. It seems to me that the proper test is this : is the judgment a final and conclusive judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction in the territory in which it was pronounced. The relevant territory here is the State of New York. Applying this test, there was here a final and conclusive judgment.’
Russell LJ said: ‘on the question whether a judgment lacks finality or conclusiveness for lack of enforceability, regard can only be had to the system of law applied by the court whose foreign judgment is in question’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Russell LJ

Citations:

[1966] 1 WLR 1287, [1966] 3 All ER 85

Cited by:

Cited – Financial Services Authority (FSA) and Others v AMRO International Sa and Another CA 24-Feb-2010
The FSA appealed against an order refusing its request for inquiries and production of accounting records by the defendant accountants to satisfy a request issued by the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
Held: The FSA had properly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, International

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.409216

Scott v Bridge and Others: ChD 25 Nov 2020

Claim to recover money and property said to have been transferred by the claimant to the defendants or one or more of them. The money concerned came from a bank account belonging to the claimant. The property concerned consisted of two dwelling-houses, one which the claimant had inherited from her parents, and in which she lived until recently, and one which was acquired by the first and second defendants under the social housing right to buy scheme. The claims are based variously on the doctrines of unjust enrichment, undue influence, resulting and constructive trusts, proprietary estoppel, and mistake.
Held: Although the claimant was entitled to judgment for the sum of pounds 89,500 on unjust enrichment principles, she was not entitled to a proprietary claim as against the third defendant’s bank account or its traceable proceeds.

Judges:

HHJ Paul Matthew

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 3116 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Wisniewski v Central Manchester Health Authority CA 1997
The court considered the effect of a party failing to bring evidence in support of its case, as regards the court drawing inferences: ‘(1) In certain circumstances a court may be entitled to draw adverse inferences from the absence or silence of a . .
Cited – Townson v Tickell And Another 6-Nov-1819
A devisee in fee may by deed, without matter of record, disclaim the estate devised.
There is a presumption that, when a gift of property is made, the donee is presumed to accept it unless, upon learning of the gift, the recipient repudiates . .
Cited – Howard v Fingall ChD 1853
Vice-Chancellor Stuart said: ‘In order to make a valid gift, there must be perfect knowledge in the mind of the person making the gift of the extent of the beneficial interest intended to be conferred, and of which it is intended to divest oneself . .
Cited – Standing v Bowring CA 18-Dec-1885
The Plaintiff, a widow, in the year 1880, caused pounds 6000 Consols to be transferred into the joint names of herself and the Defendant, who was her godson. She did so with the express intention that the Defendant, in the event of his surviving . .
Cited – Cochrane v Moore CA 29-Apr-1890
Gift of Chattel to be Completed by Delivery
To create a gift, if it be a chattel capable of manual delivery the donor must deliver it to the donee by actually handing it over, or else do some act which in the eye of the law amounts to delivery of possession, as for example handing over some . .
Cited – Dewar v Dewar ChD 1975
The court was asked whether a payment of pounds 500 by their mother to one of two brothers who were the litigants was to be treated as a gift or as a loan. The evidence showed that the mother always intended it to be a gift, that the son wanted to . .
Cited – Meisels v Lichtman and Another QBD 9-Apr-2008
The court considered gifts to charity: ‘Where there is a dispute it seems to me that it is the intentions of the donor nor that will be crucial, rather than the more familiar exercise of ascertaining the intentions of both parties in construing the . .
Cited – In re Diplock CA 1948
S 26 of the Act of 1939 would operate to postpone the running of time in the case of an action at common law to recover money paid under a mistake of fact, and would likewise apply to an analogous claim in equity to recover money paid under a . .
Cited – Foskett v McKeown and Others HL 18-May-2000
A property developer using monies which he held on trust to carry out a development instead had mixed those monies with his own in his bank account, and subsequently used those mixed monies to pay premiums on a life assurance policy on his own life, . .
Cited – Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd v Menelaou SC 4-Nov-2015
The bank customers, now appellants, redeemed a mortgage over their property, and the property was transferred to family members, who in turn borrowed from the same lender. A bank employee simply changed the name on the mortgage. This was ineffective . .
Cited – Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council HL 22-May-1996
Simple interest only on rate swap damages
The bank had paid money to the local authority under a contract which turned out to be ultra vires and void. The question was whether, in addition to ordering the repayment of the money to the bank on unjust enrichment principles, the court could . .
Preferred – Shalson and others v Russo and others ChD 11-Jul-2003
Rimer J doubted obiter comments of Lord Brown-Wilkinson: ‘I do not find that an easy passage. As to the first paragraph, a thief ordinarily acquires no property in what he steals and cannot give a title to it even to a good faith purchaser: both the . .
Cited – The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 19-Apr-2016
The issues on this appeal all relate to what have been called ‘portfolio holdings’; that is to say dividends paid on shares in foreign companies held as investments, where the investor holds less than 10 per cent of the voting power in the company . .
Mentiuoned – Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd and Others CA 29-Mar-2011
The appellant challenged a decision that it was not entitled to a proprietary interest in the proceeds of sale of some shares which had been acquired with the proceeds of a breach of trust. Specifically, the claims gave rise to (i) an issue as to . .
Cited – The Trustee of the Property of FC Jones and Sons v Jones CA 25-Apr-1996
Statute may cause the legal ownership of the bank account to change, for example on bankruptcy of the account holder or holders . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Undue Influence, Evidence

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.656364

Hoysted v Federal Commissioner of Taxation: 16 Dec 1921

High Court of Australia – Higgins J coined the term ‘issue estoppel’.

Judges:

Knox CJ, Higgins and Starke JJ

Citations:

(1921) 29 CLR 537, [1921] HCA 56

Links:

Austlii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hoystead v Commissioner of Taxation PC 1926
Lord Shaw: ‘In the opinion of their Lordships it is settled, first, that the admission of a fact fundamental to the decision arrived at cannot be withdrawn and a fresh litigation started, with a view of obtaining another judgment upon a different . .
Cited – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd SC 3-Jul-2013
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 pounds for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Commonwealth

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.535289

Grundt v Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines Limited: 8 Oct 1937

(High Court of Australia) Parties to a transaction may choose to enter into it on the basis that certain facts are to be treated as correct as between themselves for the purpose of the transaction, although both know that they are contrary to the true state of affairs, in which case the necessary convention for an estoppel will be established.
Dixon J said: ‘The justice of an estoppel is not established by the fact in itself that a state of affairs has been assumed as the basis of action or inaction and that a departure from the assumption would turn the action or inaction into a detrimental change of position. It depends also on the manner in which the assumption has been occasioned or induced. Before anyone can be estopped, he must have played such a part in the adoption of the assumption that it would be unfair or unjust if he were left free to ignore it. But the law does not leave such a question of fairness or justice at large. It defines with more or less completeness the kinds of participation in the making or acceptance of the assumption that will suffice to preclude the party if the other requirements for an estoppel are satisfied.’
and ‘It is important to notice that belief in the correctness of the facts or state of affairs assumed is not always necessary. Parties may adopt as the conventional basis of a transaction between them an assumption which they know to be contrary to the actual state of affairs. . . Parties to a deed sometimes deliberately set out an hypothetical state of affairs as the basis of their covenance in order to create a mutual estoppel.’
Latham CJ said: ‘The line between estoppel, which precludes a person from proving and relying upon a particular fact, and waiver which involves an abandonment of a right by acting in a manner inconsistent with the continued existence of the right, is not always clearly drawn.’

Judges:

Dixon J

Citations:

(1937) 59 CLR 641, [1937] HCA 58

Links:

Austlii

Cited by:

Cited – Prime Sight Ltd v Lavarello PC 9-Jul-2013
(Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.
Cited – Central Newbury Car Auctions Limited v Unity Finance Limited CA 1957
The defendant finance company alleged that the plaintiff car dealer, by its conduct, was estopped from denying the authority of their (rogue) customer to sell the car at issue, because they had permitted the customer, unkown to them, to take . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Estoppel

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.519654

Ferrier v Stewart: 24 Jun 1912

High Court of Australia – The plaintiffs were the surviving members of a firm, owed money by the defendant’s husband confirmed promissory notes. The firm extend his credit against new promissory notes, provided that they were indorsed by the defendant also so as to make her liable on the notes. This she agreed to do. In order to effect a contract between herself and the firm, the notes had formally to be indorsed by the firm to her before she put her indorsement on them. In fact, the notes were given to her, for her indorsement, before the firm’s indorsement appeared on them and she placed her indorsement on them as if they had already been indorsed to her. The notes were thereafter indorsed by the firm, so that on their face they appeared to have been indorsed in the correct chronological sequence, contrary to the facts as both parties knew them to be. The defendant subsequently refused to pay the bills on the ground that they had not been indorsed to her at the time of her signature.
Held: This defence failed. The parties had adopted a conventional basis for the transaction. They impliedly agreed that, when the promissory note should be completed by other indorsements, it should be assumed to have been issued and indorsed by the parties in due order. From this assumption the indorsee was not permitted to depart, although all parties had been aware of the actual state of affairs.

Judges:

Isaacs J

Citations:

[1912] 15 CLR 32, [1912] HCA 47

Links:

Austlii

Cited by:

Cited – Prime Sight Ltd v Lavarello PC 9-Jul-2013
(Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Estoppel, Contract

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.519655

Central Newbury Car Auctions Limited v Unity Finance Limited: CA 1957

The defendant finance company alleged that the plaintiff car dealer, by its conduct, was estopped from denying the authority of their (rogue) customer to sell the car at issue, because they had permitted the customer, unkown to them, to take possession of the car and its registration book without having made any or sufficient inquiries about him and before he was accepted as a client by the hire purchase company.
Held: By entrusting the car to the stranger together with a document which clearly stated that it did not prove legal ownership, the plaintiffs were not making any representation that the stranger was entitled to deal with the car as his own, so as to estop them from asserting their own title. The only issue fell to be decided in that case was one of the nature of representation, if any, made by the true owner by giving possession of the car and the registration book to a stranger. The question of estoppel by negligence was specifically ruled by the court not to be the issue to be determined.
Hodson LJ (majority) said: ‘In my judgment the case fell to be decided not upon a consideration of negligence but upon what is the nature of the representation made by the delivery of the registration book. The book itself is not a document of title; its terms negative ownership and it contains no representation by the plaintiffs or anyone else that the thief was entitled to deal with the car as his own. I think (counsel for plaintiffs) was right in saying that while a person in possession of a chattel may reasonably be thought to be the owner when he offers it for sale, the case of a person in possession of a motor-car does not differ in kind although the absence of the registration book detracts from the signification of possession.’
Denning LJ (dissenting) referred to Dixon J’s ‘well-considered analysis’ of estoppel in Grundt as ‘the most satisfactory that I know.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Hodson LJ

Citations:

[1957] 1 QB 371

Citing:

Cited – Grundt v Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines Limited 8-Oct-1937
(High Court of Australia) Parties to a transaction may choose to enter into it on the basis that certain facts are to be treated as correct as between themselves for the purpose of the transaction, although both know that they are contrary to the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Prime Sight Ltd v Lavarello PC 9-Jul-2013
(Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.519656

Brooke v Haynes: CA 1868

Lord Romilly MR said: ‘A party to a deed is not estopped in equity from averring against or offering evidence to controvert a recital therein contrary to the fact, which has been introduced into the deed by mistake of fact, and not through fraud or deception on his part.’

Judges:

Lord Romilly MR

Citations:

[1868] 6 LR Eq 25

Cited by:

Approved – Greer v Kettle HL 1938
A corporate borrower agreed to repay andpound;250,000 with interest and to charge certain specified shares in another company as security. A guarantee was procured from another company, Parent Trust. The deed of guarantee recited that the lender had . .
Cited – Prime Sight Ltd v Lavarello PC 9-Jul-2013
(Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Estoppel

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.519653

Carpenter v Buller: 28 Apr 1841

The defence to an action of trespass was that the defendant was seised of the land in question. He produced a deed, made between himself, the plaintiff and a third party, in which this was stated to be the case
Held: The plaintiff was not estopped from denying the defendant’s seisin because the action was not brought on the deed which did not directly concern the land. The doctrine of estoppel as it applies to recitals extends also to instruments not by deed.
Parke B said: ‘If a distinct statement of a particular fact is made in the recital of a bond, or other instrument under seal, and a contract is made with reference to that recital, it is unquestionably true, that, as between the parties to that instrument, and in an action upon it, it is not competent for the party bound to deny the recital, notwithstanding what Lord Coke says on the matter of recital in Coke Littleton, 352; and a recital in instruments not under seal may be such as to be conclusive to the same extent . . By his contract in the instrument itself, a party is assuredly bound, and must fulfil it. But there is no authority to show that a party to the instrument would be estopped, in an action by the other party, not founded on the deed, and wholly collateral to it, to dispute the facts so admitted, though the recitals would certainly be evidence.’

Judges:

Parke B

Citations:

[1841] EngR 552, (1841) 8 M and W 209, (1841) 151 ER 1013

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

Appeal from – Carpenter v Buller 29-Jul-1840
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Prime Sight Ltd v Lavarello PC 9-Jul-2013
(Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.308730

Carpenter v Buller: 29 Jul 1840

Citations:

[1840] EngR 840, (1840) 2 M and Rob 298, (1840) 174 ER 295 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Approved – Greer v Kettle HL 1938
A corporate borrower agreed to repay andpound;250,000 with interest and to charge certain specified shares in another company as security. A guarantee was procured from another company, Parent Trust. The deed of guarantee recited that the lender had . .
Appeal from – Carpenter v Buller 28-Apr-1841
The defence to an action of trespass was that the defendant was seised of the land in question. He produced a deed, made between himself, the plaintiff and a third party, in which this was stated to be the case
Held: The plaintiff was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.310266

Horton v The Westminster Improvement Commissioners: 2 Jun 1852

The plaintiff was assignee of the defendants’ bond to A to pay andpound;10,000. It recited that the defendants had borrowed andpound;5,000 from A for the purposes of carrying out works under the Westminster Improvement Acts 1845 and 1847. The defendants pleaded that they had not borrowed any money from A. The underlying facts, according to the defendants, were that the defendants owed money to B and C, who were induced by A into agreeing that the defendants should issue the bond to A in lieu of payment to themselves. B and C then discovered that they were the victim of a scam and requested the defendants not to pay the bond. In short, the parties to the bond, A and the defendants, both knew when it was issued that the recital about A having lent money to the defendants was false.
Held: The defendants were estopped from denying the truth of the facts stated.
Martin B said: ‘The meaning of estoppel is this – that the parties agreed, for the purpose of a particular transaction, to state certain facts as true; and that, so far as regards that transaction, there shall be no question about them.’
The position would be different if the statement had been made for the purpose of concealing an illegal contract, but that was not the case. Nor was it alleged that A had practised a fraud on the defendants. He was alleged to have deceived B and C, when they directed the defendants to give the bond to A, but that did not affect the validity of the bond.

Judges:

Baron Martin

Citations:

[1852] EngR 658, (1853) 7 Exch 780, (1852) 155 ER 1165

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Horton v The Westminster Improvement Commissioners 2-Jun-1852
The plaintiff was assignee of the defendants’ bond to A to pay andpound;10,000. It recited that the defendants had borrowed andpound;5,000 from A for the purposes of carrying out works under the Westminster Improvement Acts 1845 and 1847. The . .

Cited by:

See Also – Horton v The Westminster Improvement Commissioners 12-Jun-1852
. .
See Also – Horton v The Westminster Improvement Commissioners 2-Jun-1852
The plaintiff was assignee of the defendants’ bond to A to pay andpound;10,000. It recited that the defendants had borrowed andpound;5,000 from A for the purposes of carrying out works under the Westminster Improvement Acts 1845 and 1847. The . .
Cited – Prime Sight Ltd v Lavarello PC 9-Jul-2013
(Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.295781

Horton v The Westminster Improvement Commissioners: 12 Jun 1852

Citations:

[1852] EngR 729, (1853) 7 Exch 911, (1852) 155 ER 1220

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Horton v The Westminster Improvement Commissioners 2-Jun-1852
The plaintiff was assignee of the defendants’ bond to A to pay andpound;10,000. It recited that the defendants had borrowed andpound;5,000 from A for the purposes of carrying out works under the Westminster Improvement Acts 1845 and 1847. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Equity

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.295852

Stroughill v Buck: 13 Feb 1850

Patteson J said: ‘When a recital is intended to be a statement which all parties to the deed have mutually agreed to admit as true, it is an estoppel upon all. But, when it is intended to be the statement of one party only, the estoppel is confined to that party, and the intention is to be gathered from construing the instrument.’

Judges:

Patteson J

Citations:

[1850] EngR 295, (1850) 14 QB 781, (1850) 117 ER 301

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Prime Sight Ltd v Lavarello PC 9-Jul-2013
(Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.297642

Ashpitel (Executor of James Peto) v Bryan: 1862

Defendant having accepted a bill drawn by procuration in the name of a person deceased, and handed it, indorsed in that name to a third party, held liable to that party ; and held no defence that the consideration was goods, assets of the deceased, in the possession of the endorsee, and that the bill was on an understanding that the indorsee should take out a adminiistration to his estate in the absence of evidence of an express agreement to that effect.

Judges:

Mellor J

Citations:

[1862] EngR 3 (B), (1862) 3 F and F 183

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ashpitel, Executor Of James Peto v Bryan QBD 20-Jan-1863
Estoppel. Bill of exchange. Acceptor. Denial of indorsement. – Declaration by the executor of B. upon a bill of exchange purporting to be drawn by A. and accepted by the defendant, and indorsed by A. to B. Plea, that A. did not indorse the bill. It . .
See Aslo – Ashpitel, Executor Of James Peto v Bryan CEC 14-Jun-1864
Bill of exchange. Acceptor. Denial of indorsement. Account stated. – Declaration by the executor of B. upon a bill of exchange purporting to be drawn by A. and accepted by the defendant, and indorsed by A. to B. ; with a count upon accounts stated. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.286169

M’Cance v The London And North Western Railway Company: 19 Nov 1861

In an action against a railway Company, the first count of the declaration alleged that the plaintiff employed the defendants to provide trucks for the carriage of the plaintiff’s horses, for hire to be paid by the plaintiff, in consideration whereof the defendants promised the plaintiff that the trucks should he reasonably fit and proper for the carriage of such horses Breach: that the defendants did not provide fit and proper trucks, whereby the plaritiff’s horses were injured. Second count that the defendants having received certain horses of the plaintiff to be carried by railway, in consequence of the defective state of the truck and the negligerice and want of care of the defendants, the plaintiffs horses weie injured. Plea: payment of 25l. into Court Replication damages ultra. At the trial, it appeared that when the plaintiff delivered the horses to the defendants, he signed at their request a declaration that the value of the horses (did not exceed 10l. per horse, and that, on consideration of the rate charged for their conveyance, he thereby agreed that the same were to be carried entirely at the ownet’s risk. In the course of the journey the horses were injured in consequence of the defective state of the truck in which they were carried. The horses were worth more than 10l each, and if taken at, their real value the damage sustained by the plaintiff was 65l, but if valued at 10l each the 25l. paid into Court covered the plaintiff’s claim. A verdict having been entered for the plantiff for 40l. on motion to enter the verdict for the defendants, the Court being at liberty to draw inferences of fact Held that the plaintiff having made a wilfully false statement as to the value of the horses for the purpose of inducing, and having thereby induced, the defendants to enter into the contract, was not at liberty to shew their real value, in order to obtain compensation above the amount paid into Court — Semble, that thedeclaration of the value of the horses formed no part of the contract, and that even if it were it did not render the contract a conditional contract –Also, that, the stipulation that the horses should he carried entirely at the owner’s risk was not unreasonable and void within the meaning of the 17 and 18 Vict. C 31.

Citations:

[1861] EngR 967, (1861) 7 H and N 477, (1861) 158 ER 559

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Appeal from – M’Cance v The London And North Western Railway Company 20-Jun-1864
The plaintff contracted with the defendant for the transport of horses, understating their value. On their loss, the plaintiff sought their full value. The defendant had succeeded in limiting the award to the value stated.
Held: Williams J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.284728

Ashpitel, Executor Of James Peto v Bryan: QBD 20 Jan 1863

Estoppel. Bill of exchange. Acceptor. Denial of indorsement. – Declaration by the executor of B. upon a bill of exchange purporting to be drawn by A. and accepted by the defendant, and indorsed by A. to B. Plea, that A. did not indorse the bill. It appeared that A., who was possessed of goods, being the stock in trade upon his premises, died intestate indebted to the defendant and other persons ; and it was arranged between B, and the defendant, who were two of his next of kin, that the defendant, should take possession of the goods and accept a bill of exchange for their value, purporting to be drawn and indorsed by A. The goods were accordingly delivered to the defendant, and the bill declared upon was drawn and indorsed to the plaintiff by procuration in the name of A., and accepted by the defendant. Held, that the defendant could not he allowed to set up as a defence to the action that the bill was not indorsed by A.
Cropmton J said: ‘If it appears . . that, by express agreement between the parties, a bill was drawn and indorsed by procuration in the name of a fictitious or dead person, and the position of one of the parties has been altered, as in the present case, by giving up certain goods to the other, that other is not at liberty afterwards to say that the fact which was assumed as the basis of the contract or arrangement, and upon which the other party acted, and thereby altered his position, was really untrue and that the bill is void.’

Judges:

Crompton J

Citations:

[1863] EngR 158, (1863) 3 B and S 474, (1863) 122 ER 179

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

Appeal from – Ashpitel (Executor of James Peto) v Bryan 1862
Defendant having accepted a bill drawn by procuration in the name of a person deceased, and handed it, indorsed in that name to a third party, held liable to that party ; and held no defence that the consideration was goods, assets of the deceased, . .

Cited by:

Affirmed – Ashpitel, Executor Of James Peto v Bryan CEC 14-Jun-1864
Bill of exchange. Acceptor. Denial of indorsement. Account stated. – Declaration by the executor of B. upon a bill of exchange purporting to be drawn by A. and accepted by the defendant, and indorsed by A. to B. ; with a count upon accounts stated. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.282813

Ashpitel, Executor Of James Peto v Bryan: CEC 14 Jun 1864

Bill of exchange. Acceptor. Denial of indorsement. Account stated. – Declaration by the executor of B. upon a bill of exchange purporting to be drawn by A. and accepted by the defendant, and indorsed by A. to B. ; with a count upon accounts stated. It appeared that A., who was possessed of goods, being the stock in trade upon his premises, died intestate, and indebted to the defendant and other persons ; and it was arranged between B. and the defendant, who were two of his next of kin, that the defendant should take possession of the goods and accept a bill of exchange for their value, purporting to be drawn and indorsed by A. The goods were accordingly delivered to the defendant, and the bill declared upon was drawn and indorsed to the plaintiff by procuration in the name of A., and accepted by the defendant.
Held: affirming the judgrtlerit of the Queen’s Bench ; that the defendant could not be allowed to set up as a defence to the action that the bill was not indorsed by A.-2. Semble. That the bill was evidence of an account stated.
Pollock CB said: ‘We all agree with the Court below that there may arise an estoppel by agreement, and that such an estoppel arises here. The parties agreed that the transaction should have this character, viz, that the defendant should appear to have bought the goods of John Peto, and that therefore the bill should be drawn and indorsed in the name of John Peto, and it was afterwards accepted by the defendant on the basis of that agreement. The defendant having accepted the bill after it had been drawn and indorsed in that name, and having promised payment of it, now says that it was not drawn and indorsed by John Peto; but he is estopped from doing so.’

Judges:

Pollock CB, Williams, Wills JJ, Bramwell and Channell BB

Citations:

[1864] EngR 575, (1864) 5 B and S 723, (1864) 122 ER 999

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Aslo – Ashpitel (Executor of James Peto) v Bryan 1862
Defendant having accepted a bill drawn by procuration in the name of a person deceased, and handed it, indorsed in that name to a third party, held liable to that party ; and held no defence that the consideration was goods, assets of the deceased, . .
Affirmed – Ashpitel, Executor Of James Peto v Bryan QBD 20-Jan-1863
Estoppel. Bill of exchange. Acceptor. Denial of indorsement. – Declaration by the executor of B. upon a bill of exchange purporting to be drawn by A. and accepted by the defendant, and indorsed by A. to B. Plea, that A. did not indorse the bill. It . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.282289

M’Cance v The London And North Western Railway Company: 20 Jun 1864

The plaintff contracted with the defendant for the transport of horses, understating their value. On their loss, the plaintiff sought their full value. The defendant had succeeded in limiting the award to the value stated.
Held: Williams J cited with approval Blackburn’s statement in his Treaty on the Contract of Sale that ‘when parties have agreed to act upon an assumed state of facts their rights between themselves are justly made to depend on the conventional state of facts, and not on the truth.’

Judges:

Williams J

Citations:

[1864] EngR 595, (1864) 3 H and C 343, (1864) 159 ER 563

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

Appeal from – M’Cance v The London And North Western Railway Company 19-Nov-1861
In an action against a railway Company, the first count of the declaration alleged that the plaintiff employed the defendants to provide trucks for the carriage of the plaintiff’s horses, for hire to be paid by the plaintiff, in consideration . .

Cited by:

Cited – Prime Sight Ltd v Lavarello PC 9-Jul-2013
(Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.282309

Foster v Robinson: CA 1950

Where a tenant has purported to surrender his lease, but has not succeeded, and the tenant changes his situation, the landlord may be estopped from asserting that the lease continues.

Judges:

Sir Raymond Evershed MR

Citations:

[1950] 2 All ER 342, [1951] KB 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Binions v Evans CA 27-Jan-1972
The plaintiffs had bought a cottage subjecty to a tenancy to the defendant. They sought possession saying that she held under a tenancy at will. It was a renancy for her life but described as a tenancy at will. The judge had held that the other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.245881

Reichel v Magrath: PC 1889

The new vicar of Sparsholt, Dr Magrath, was able to rely on the abuse of process even though he had not been party to earlier proceedings between Reichel and the Bishop of Oxford and the Queen’s College and so was not bound by any issue estoppel arising out of those proceedings.
Lord Halsbury said: ‘I think it will be a scandal to the administration of justice if, the same question having been disposed of by one case, the litigant were to be permitted by changing the form of the proceedings to set up the same case again’.

Judges:

Lord Halsbury

Citations:

[1889] 14 App Cas 665

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
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. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
Cited – Levey, Regina v CACD 27-Jul-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction of manslaughter of his baby son. He said that a family court had previously investigated the same allegations and had explicitly found itself unable to say which of himself and the mother were . .
Cited – Laing v Taylor Walton (A Firm) QBD 20-Feb-2007
The claimant sought to pursue an action for professional negligence against his solicitors. They said that the action was an abuse being an attempted relitigation of matters already settled when a judge had decided that the defendants had not owed a . .
Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Another CA 13-Jan-2017
The appellant company sought to recover assets which, it said, had been acquired by a former partner in breach of his obligations under the partnership agreement, but which had been taken in the names of some of the respondents. There had been an . .
Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others ComC 21-Sep-2012
The claimant company alleged that the defendants had variously received assests (shares and cash) acquired by a former partner in the claimant company and held on his behalf, in breach of his obligations to the caimant partnership. The defendants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Estoppel

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.244668

Hoystead v Commissioner of Taxation: PC 1926

Lord Shaw: ‘In the opinion of their Lordships it is settled, first, that the admission of a fact fundamental to the decision arrived at cannot be withdrawn and a fresh litigation started, with a view of obtaining another judgment upon a different assumption of fact; secondly, the same principle applies not only to an erroneous admission of a fundamental fact, but to an erroneous assumption as to the legal quality of that fact. Parties are not permitted to begin fresh litigations because of new views they may entertain of the law of the case, or new versions which they present as to what should be a proper apprehension by the Court of the legal result either of the construction of the documents or the weight of certain circumstances. If this were permitted litigation would have no end, except when legal ingenuity is exhausted.’

Judges:

Lord Shaw of Dunfermline

Citations:

[1926] AC 155, [1925] All ER 56, (1926) 42 TLR 207, 67 ER 313

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Appeal from – Hoysted v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 16-Dec-1921
High Court of Australia – Higgins J coined the term ‘issue estoppel’. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 30-Jan-2006
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . .
Cited – Barrett v Universal-Island Records Ltd and others ChD 15-May-2006
The claimant was entitled to share in the copyright royalties of Bob Marley and the Wailers, and claimed payment from the defendants. The defendants said that the matters had already been settled and that the claim was an abuse of process, and also . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.241331

Van Grutten v Foxwell: 1897

It would be dangerous to allow a jury, eight years after the event, to decide that a woman executing a deed had been incompetent to do so when at the time she had been certified competent. It is one thing to put the rule in a nutshell and another to keep it there (Lord Macnaghten).

Judges:

Lord Macnaghten, Lord Herschell

Citations:

[1897] AC 658

Citing:

Cited – Shelley’s case; Wolfe v Shelley 1581
If it is possible to do so, every word in a deed must be given effect. A judgment and the process known as recovery were effective even though the defendant had died in the early morning of the day on which, after his death, the court orders were . .

Cited by:

Cited – Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited HL 26-Jan-2006
Mr Lawson was employed by Serco as a security supervisor at the British RAF base on Ascension Island, which is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena. Mr Botham was employed as a youth worker at various Ministry of Defence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Health

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.238150

Re de Burgho’s Estate: 1896

The court considered the necessary elements of issue estoppel: ‘According to the clear principles of the law of estoppel, it is necessary, in order to estop the objector, to show that he derives title under Dwyer by act or operation of law subsequent to the recovery of the judgment. If this is shown it is reasonable that he should be estopped, because his estate was represented at the time of the recovery of the judgment though not in his person.’

Judges:

Madden J

Citations:

[1896] IR 274

Cited by:

Cited – Wiltshire v Powell and others CA 7-May-2004
The claimant sought a declaration as to the ownership of an aircraft. Saying he had bought it in good faith from E H and S, who in turn similarly claimed to have bought it from Ebbs. The defendant had obtained a judgment that he was owner as against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Estoppel

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.198730

Bader Bee v Habib Merican Noordin: HL 1909

Where a party could have appealed against an earlier decision of a court, but did not, he would later be estopped from denying that decision.

Judges:

Lord Macnaghten

Citations:

[1909] AC 615

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Penn-Texas Corporation v Murat Anstalt (No 2) CA 1964
The court considered a claim for an issue estoppel arising from a foreign judgment: ‘In my opinion a previous judgment between the same parties is only conclusive on matters which are conclusive and necessary to the decision. It is not conclusive on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188237

Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2): HL 1966

An agency had to be proved in a search to identify an entity which the law recognised (a) existed and (b) was legally responsible for the acts in issue in the proceedings. The House was asked whether the fact that an issue had already been determined in proceedings in West Germany meant that the same issue could not be re-litigated in English proceedings; whether the foreign judgment could give rise to issue estoppel.
Held: It could. The House looked at the principles in issue estoppel as between a decision of a foreign court, and a similar issue being litigated in England. It could. In the course of this discussion, the House had to consider whether the conditions for issue estoppel were fulfilled. One of those conditions was that the judgment of the foreign court had been final and binding. The House unanimously treated the issue as one governed by the foreign law even though English law applied to the conditions for estoppel.
Lord Wilberforce said: ‘As a matter of principle (and we are really thrown back upon principle), whether the recognition of judgments is based upon a recognition of vested rights, or upon considerations of public interest in limiting relitigation, there seems to be no acceptable reason why the recognition of foreign judgments should not extend to the recognition of issue decisions. From the nature of things (and here it is right to recall Lord Brougham’s warning) this, in the case of foreign judgments, may involve difficulties and necessitate caution. The right to ascertain the precise issue decided, by examination of the court’s judgment, of the pleadings and possibly of the evidence, may well, in the case of courts whose procedure, decision-making technique, and substantive law is not the same as our own, make it difficult or even impossible to establish the identity of the issue there decided with that attempted here to be raised, or the necessity for the foreign decision. And I think that it would be right for a court in this country, when faced with a claim of issue estoppel arising out of foreign proceedings, to receive the claim with caution in circumstances where the party against whom the estoppel is raised might not have had occasion to raise the particular issue. The fact that the court can (as I have stated) examine the pleadings, evidence and other material, seems fully consistent with its right to take a broad view of the result of the foreign decision. But with these reservations, where after careful examination there appears to have been a full contestation and a clear decision on an issue, it would in my opinion be unfortunate to exclude estoppel by issue decision from the sphere of recognition.’ and
Lord Reid: ‘I can see no reason in principle why we should deny the possibility of issue estoppel based on a foreign judgment, but there appear to me to be at least three reasons for being cautious in any particular case. In the first place, we are not familiar with modes of procedure in many foreign countries, and it may not be easy to be sure that a particular issue has been decided or that its decision was a basis of the foreign judgment and not merely collateral or obiter. Secondly, I have already alluded to the practical difficulties of a defendant in deciding whether, even in this country, he should incur the trouble and expense of deploying his case because it was impracticable for him to do so in an earlier case of a trivial character abroad, with the result that the decision in the case went against him.’ and ‘ . . it seems to me to verge on absurdity that we should regard as conclusive something in a German judgment which the German courts themselves would not regard as conclusive. It is quite true that estoppel is a matter for the lex fori but the lex fori ought to be developed in a manner consistent with good sense.’
Lord Upjohn: ‘All estoppels are not odious but must be applied so as to work justice and not injustice and I think the principle of issue estoppel must be applied to the circumstances of the subsequent case with this overriding consideration in mind.’
Lord Guest said: ‘Another aspect of finality relates to the requirement that the decision relied upon as estoppel must itself be res judicata in the country in which it is made. . . It would, indeed, be illogical if the decision were to be res judicata in England, if it were not also res judicata in the foreign jurisdiction. I am not satisfied that the respondents have discharged the burden of proof upon them of establishing that the West German judgment is res judicata in West Germany.’ and ‘The requirements of issue estoppel still remain (1) that the same question has been decided, (2) that the judicial decision which is said to create the estoppel was final, and (3) that the parties to the judicial decision, or their privies, were the same persons as the parties to the proceedings in which the estoppel is raised, or their privies.’

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Reid, Lord Upjohn

Citations:

[1967] 1 AC 853, [1966] 2 All ER 536, [1967] RPC 497, [1966] 3 WLR 125

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Carl Zeiss Siftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2) CA 1965
The Court having held that the plaintiff had not been competent to bring the action, regarded itself as having jurisdiction to make an award of costs against the plaintiff’s solicitors. . .
Cited – Nouvion v Freeman HL 1889
A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may be final and binding, even though a right of appeal to a superior court remains open.
Lord Herschell stated on the question of finality or conclusiveness of a foreign judgment: ‘in order to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Good Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA CA 24-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an . .
Cited – The Sennar (No 2) HL 1985
The Henderson v Henderson principle should only be applied where it is clear (i) that the decision or determination relied on was made by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction and (ii) the decision upon the issue later sought to be raised is a . .
Cited – Wiltshire v Powell and others CA 7-May-2004
The claimant sought a declaration as to the ownership of an aircraft. Saying he had bought it in good faith from E H and S, who in turn similarly claimed to have bought it from Ebbs. The defendant had obtained a judgment that he was owner as against . .
Cited – Gur Corporation v Trust Bank of Africa 1987
Governmental acts of an unrecognised state cannot be recognised by an English court but ‘Common sense and justice may combine to require the qualification of these principles in certain respects.’ Discussing the Carl Zeiss case: ‘Carl Zeiss was . .
Cited – North Cyprus Tourism Centre Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Transport for London Admn 28-Jul-2005
The defendants had prevented the claimants from advertising their services in North Cyprus on their buses, and justified this saying that the Crown did not recognise the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus since it was the result of an unlawful . .
Cited – Barrett v Universal-Island Records Ltd and others ChD 15-May-2006
The claimant was entitled to share in the copyright royalties of Bob Marley and the Wailers, and claimed payment from the defendants. The defendants said that the matters had already been settled and that the claim was an abuse of process, and also . .
Cited – Dallah Estates and Tourism Holding Company v Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government Of Pakistan CA 20-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce an international arbitration award against the defendant in respect of the provision of accommodation for Hajj pilgrims. A without notice order had been made to allow its enforcement, but that had been set aside.
Cited – Calzaghe v Warren QBD 20-Jan-2010
The claimant boxer had secured judgement for fight fees from a company operated by the respondent manager and promoter. After the judgment the defendant had put the company into administration. The claimant now sought payment from the defendant . .
Cited – NML Capital Ltd v Argentina SC 6-Jul-2011
The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets . .
Cited – Joint Stock Company (Aeroflot-Russian Airlines) v Berezovsky and Another CA 16-Jan-2014
The appellant had judgments obtained in Russia against the respondent. It now appealed against a refusal of enforcement of those judgments based upon the ground that there was a complete defence to the recognition and enforcement of the judgments . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188229

Regina v Hutchings: 1881

The Local Board had been refused an order for recovery of a proportion of the expenses of sewering a property on the basis that the road was maintainable by the public at large. Years later the Board sought to recover paving expenses. It was held that the earlier decision was beyond the magistrates’ jurisdiction, and no estoppel could be mainatined against the board.

Citations:

(1881) 6 QBD 300

Cited by:

Cited – Penn-Texas Corporation v Murat Anstalt (No 2) CA 1964
The court considered a claim for an issue estoppel arising from a foreign judgment: ‘In my opinion a previous judgment between the same parties is only conclusive on matters which are conclusive and necessary to the decision. It is not conclusive on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Magistrates

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188236

Kammins Ballrooms Co Limited v Zenith Investments (Torquay) Limited: HL 1970

The tenant had served his section 26 notice under the 1954 Act, but then began the court proceedings before the minumum two month period had expired. The landlord did not take the point at first, and delivered an answer and negotiated compensation. After the expiry of the maximum period of four months, when it was too late for the tenant to apply, the landlord’s solicitors informed the tenant that it would make a preliminary objection at the hearing that the tenant’s application was invalid.
Held: The time limit was procedural or technical, not one of jurisdiction, and as such the landlord could waive the breach. The landlord had done so. The task on which a court of justice is engaged remains one of construction; even where this involves reading into the Act words which are not expressly included in it. The question was treated as a question of statutory construction: was it the intention of Parliament to preclude the parties from agreeing that a notice given by one of them to the other should have effect even though the statutory requirements were not satisfied? ‘And apart from this distinctive feature of this particular statute, where in any Act which merely regulates the rights and obligations of private parties inter se requirements to be complied with by one of those parties are imposed for the sole benefit of the other party it would be inconsistent with their purpose if the party intended to be benefited were not entitled to dispense with the other party’s compliance in circumstances where it as in his own interest to do so . . Upon the purposive approach to statutory construction this is the reason why in a statute of this character a procedural requirement imposed for the benefit or protection of one party alone is construed as subject to the implied exception that it can be ‘waived’ by the party for whose benefit it is imposed even though the statute states the requirement in unqualified and unequivocal words. In this context ‘waived’ means that the party has chosen not to rely upon the non-compliance of the other party with the requirement, or has disentitled himself from relying upon it either by agreeing with the other party not to do so or because he has so conducted himself that it would not be fair to allow him to rely upon the non-compliance.’
Waiver is far from a precise term of art. It was used in a wider sense of a deliberate decision by a party not to stand on his strict rights, by not taking a technical point as to the validity of a notice.

Judges:

Lord Diplock, Viscount Dilhorne

Citations:

[1971] AC 850, [1971] 1 WLR 1751, [1970] 2 All ER 871

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Limited v Ballard (Kent) Limited CA 18-Mar-1999
In order for the landlord to claim double rent where a tenant held over unlawfully after the tenancy was determined, the landlord must not do anything to indicate that the lease might be continuing, for example by denying the validity of break . .
Cited – Peyman v Lanjani CA 1985
Application was made for consent to assign a lease. The court was asked whether or not the purchaser of a leasehold interest in a property, who had elected to affirm the contract despite a repudiatory breach by the vendor, could be held to his . .
Cited – Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd CA 6-Feb-2006
The deceased had come into contact with asbestos when working on building sites for more than one contractor. The claimant here sought contribution from the defendants for the damages it had paid to his estate. The issue was as to liability on . .
Cited – The Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation v Carvel and Another ChD 11-Jun-2007
The husband and wife had made mutual wills in the US with an express agreement not to make later alterations or dispositions without the agreement of the other or at all after the first death. The wife survived, but having lost the first will made a . .
Cited – Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd and Others v Fattal and Others CA 8-Apr-2009
The parties had been involved in serial disputes regarding the management of leasehold apartments. It was now objected that the current case was an abuse of process.
Held: The appeal against the stay succeeded. The new case had been flagged up . .
Cited – Guangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd v Ene Aegiali I ComC 5-Nov-2010
No appeal on facts from award
The defendant ship owners sought to strike out the claimant’s appeal against an arbitration award to the extent that that appeal consisted of an appeal against the factual findings. The claimant argued that the parties had agreed that such an appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188153

Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa Ltd SA v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Ltd: HL 1972

To found a promissory estoppel there has to be a clear and unequivocal representation as to the intended actions of the defendant.
Lord Hailsham LC reiterated the proposition derived from Low v Bouverie that in order to give rise to an estoppel, a representation should be clear and unequivocal, and he indicated that if a representation was not made in such a form, it would not matter that the representee had misconstrued it and relied upon it. Lord Hailsham LC also addressed the dictum of Bowen LJ in Low v Bouverie, and said: ‘I am satisfied that, in the second sentence of the above quotation, the meaning is to exclude far-fetched or strained, but still possible, interpretations, whilst still insisting on a sufficient precision and freedom from ambiguity to ensure that the representation will (not may) be reasonably understood in the particular sense required. I do not regard this second sentence as any authority for general qualification of the first. On the contrary, the first sentence governs the second and contains the very proposition for which Low v. Bouverie is rightly cited as an authority.’

Judges:

Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone LC

Citations:

[1972] AC 741, [1971] 2 QB 23, [1971] 1 All ER 605, [1971] 2 WLR 272

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Low v Bouverie CA 1891
If a trustee chooses to answer questions from a stranger about the cestui que trust, his legal obligation is only to answer honestly and to the best of his information. He need not make enquiries to support those answers.
Bowen LJ said: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dun and Bradstreet Software Services (England) Ltd; Dun and Bradstreet Software Services Ltd v Provident Mutual Life Assurance Association and General Accident Linked Life Assurance CA 9-Jun-1997
Break clauses had been exercised on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant landlords appealed a decision upholding the notices. A penalty rent had been sought.
Held: There had been no sufficient agency established to validate the notice. The . .
Cited – Super Chem Products Limited v American Life and General Insurance Company Limited and Others PC 12-Jan-2004
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) A fire occurred at premises in which the stock was insured under two policies. Both insurers denied the claims alleging arson, and that it was out of time. The claimant said that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188169