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 fromPorter 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:

CitedThorner 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

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

Cited by:

MentionedCadbury 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: 17 May 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

Cited by:

DistinguishedDixon 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] . .
CitedCadbury 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: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.242177

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:

CitedDuedu v Yiboe PC 1961
. .
See AlsoIn 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:

CitedGood 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 fromIn re Norway’s Applications HL 1990
The house considered appeals from the two earlier applications, upholding the first and reversing the second. . .
CitedUnited 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 fromRe 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:

CitedThorner 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:

CitedImperial 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:

CitedPelling 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 . .
CitedSt 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:

CitedCity 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. . .
CitedYeoman’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:

CitedLipkin 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

Combe v Combe: CA 1951

The defendant husband had promised his wife to allow her andpound;100 a year free of tax, without his wife furnishing any consideration for the promise. On his failing to pay, she sued on the promise.
Held: Her claim failed. The court declined to treat the principle in High Trees as extending to cover such a case. Promissory estoppel is a defence not itself a cause of action. It is a shield not a sword.
Birkett LJ adopted a phrase of the husband’s counsel that the principle is ‘one to be used as a shield and not as a sword’.
Denning LJ said that the principle ‘does not create new causes of action. It only prevents a party from insisting upon his strict legal rights, when it would be unjust to allow him to enforce them, having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties’
Having considered case law on the need for consideration, he said: ‘In none of these cases was the defendant sued on the promise, assurance, or assertion as a cause of action in itself. He was sued for some other cause, for example, a pension or a breach of contract, or possession, and the promise, assurance, or assertion only played a supplementary role, though, no doubt, an important one. That is, I think, its true function. It may be part of a cause of action, but not a cause of action in itself. The principle, as I understand it, is that where one party has, by his words or conduct, made to the other a promise or assurance which was intended to affect the legal relations between them and to be acted on accordingly, then, once the other party has taken him at his word and acted on it, the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to the previous legal relations as if no such promise or assurance had been made by him, but he must accept their legal relations subject to the qualification which he himself has so introduced, even though it is not supported in point of law by any consideration, but only by his word.
Seeing that the principle never stands alone as giving a cause of action in itself, it can never do away with the necessity of consideration when that is an essential part of the cause of action. The doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side-wind. Its ill effects have been largely mitigated of late, but it still remains a cardinal necessity of the formation of a contract, although not of its modification or discharge. I fear that it was my failure to make this clear in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd which misled Byrne J in the present case. He held that the wife could sue on the husband’s promise as a separate and independent cause of action by itself, although, as he held, there was no consideration for it. That is not correct. The wife can only enforce the promise if there was consideration for it. That is, therefore, the real question in the case: Was there sufficient consideration to support the promise?

Judges:

Denning LJ, Birkett and Asquith LJJ

Citations:

[1951] 2 KB 215

Citing:

ExplainedCentral London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd KBD 1947
Promissory Estoppel Created
The plaintiff leased a block a flats to the defendant in 1939, at an annual rental of pounds 2500. High Trees had difficulty in filling the flats because of the war, and the parties agreed in writing in 1940 to reduce the rental to a half. No time . .

Cited by:

CitedWWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) and Another v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc CA 2-Apr-2007
The parties had disputed use of the initals WWF, with a compromise reached in 1994 allowing primary use by the Fund with restricted use by the Federation. The Federation now appealed an award of damages made after a finding of a breach of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.250976

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

Cited by:

CitedCadbury 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: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.242179

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 instanceNewbury 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 ApprovedPyx 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 fromNewbury 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 . .
ApprovedAston 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 . .
ApprovedStringer 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:

CitedRegina (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 . .
ApprovedGrampian 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 . .
CitedWilliamson 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 . .
CitedLand at 34 Manor Road, Pawlett, Bridgewater, Arlidge v Secretary of State for Environment and Sedgemoor District Council CA 9-Jun-1997
. .
CitedJ 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 . .
CitedRegina (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 . .
CitedNourish v Adamson Admn 29-Jan-1998
. .
CitedRegina v Bristol City Council ex parte Anderson Admn 9-Mar-1998
. .
CitedAl Wood-Robinson v Secretary of State for Environment and Council of London Borough of Wandsworth Admn 3-Apr-1998
. .
MentionedRegina 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. . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedTarmac Materials Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Admn 6-Jul-1999
. .
CitedGosbee 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 . .
CitedPioneer 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 . .
CitedRanson, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State and Forest Heath District Council Admn 27-Nov-2003
. .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedJennings 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.
CitedTesco 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 . .
CitedWestminster 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? . .
CitedRegina 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:

CitedLay 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:

CitedKingston’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 . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedBader 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:

CitedGood 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:

CitedGreenhalgh 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:

CitedHitchin 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 . .
CitedJohnson 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 . .
CitedBrown 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 . .
CitedCampbell 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 . .
CitedSarwar 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:

CitedBank 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:

CitedScott 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:

CitedGill 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:

CitedScott 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 fromCuthbertson 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

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

Cited by:

At First InstanceYeoman’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: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.276427

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:

DistinguishedSimm 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:

CitedCadbury 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:

CitedKing 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:

CitedGood 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 . .
CitedSarwar 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 AlsoXtralite 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 AlsoXtralite 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 fromNewbury 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 fromNewbury 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:

CitedAker 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 . .
CitedIqbal 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 fromGillett 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 . .
CitedYeoman’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:

CitedCar 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:

CitedBerrisford 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 AlsoTrade 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:

CitedCoke-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:

CitedSmithkline 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

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:

CitedThe 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

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:

CitedSweetman 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:

CitedSweetman 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:

CitedThe 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

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:

ApprovedSalvation 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:

CitedConfetti 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 . .
CitedGonthier 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 . .
CitedEvans 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 . .
CitedCobbe 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 . .
CitedLondon 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 . .
CitedYeoman’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 . .
ExplainedJT 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:

CitedFinancial 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:

CitedWisniewski 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 . .
CitedTownson 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 . .
CitedHoward 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 . .
CitedStanding 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 . .
CitedCochrane 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 . .
CitedDewar 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 . .
CitedMeisels 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 . .
CitedIn 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 . .
CitedFoskett 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, . .
CitedBank 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 . .
CitedWestdeutsche 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 . .
PreferredShalson 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 . .
CitedThe 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 . .
MentiuonedSinclair 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 . .
CitedThe 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 fromHoystead 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 . .
CitedVirgin 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:

CitedPrime 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.
CitedCentral 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:

CitedPrime 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:

CitedGrundt 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:

CitedPrime 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:

ApprovedGreer 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 . .
CitedPrime 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

Allied Marine Ltd v Vale do Rio Doce SA (The Leonidas D): CA 1985

One party sought to construct an agreement to abandon an ongoing, if stalled, arbitration out of mere silence.
Held: Robert Goff LJ said that silence will not normally amount to acceptance of an offer since acceptance cannot be inferred from silence alone ‘save in the most exceptional circumstances’, and ‘We should add that we see the same difficulty in invoking the principle of equitable estoppel in such circumstances. It is well settled that that principle requires that one party should have made an unequivocal representation that he does not intend to enforce his strict legal rights against the other; yet it is difficult to imagine how silence and inaction can be anything but equivocal.’
. . And ‘if one party, O, so acts that his conduct, objectively considered, constitutes an offer, and the other party, A, believing that the conduct of O represents his actual intention, accepts O’s offer, then a contract will come into existence, and on those facts it will make no difference if O did not in fact intend to make an offer, or if he misunderstood A’s acceptance, so that O’s state of mind is, in such circumstances, irrelevant.’

Judges:

Robert Goff LJ

Citations:

[1985] 1 WLR 925, [1985] 2 Lloyds Rep 18, [1985] 2 All ER 796

Cited by:

CitedIn Re Selectmove Ltd CA 21-Dec-1993
Promisse to Pay Tax due is not Consideration
The company appealed against an order for its winding up, saying that the debt was disputed, an accomodation having been reached with the Revenue.
Held: The court declined to regard a promise to the Revenue by a company to pay its existing . .
CitedWarren and Another v Burns QBD 13-Nov-2014
The boxing manager and boxer each said that the other owed him money.
Held: The contract entitled the claimant to take some share of the boxers earnings but as part of the overall management fee, but as a part of the overall sum and at a share . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.396763

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 fromCarpenter v Buller 29-Jul-1840
. .

Cited by:

CitedPrime 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:

ApprovedGreer 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 fromCarpenter 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 AlsoHorton 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 AlsoHorton v The Westminster Improvement Commissioners 12-Jun-1852
. .
See AlsoHorton 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 . .
CitedPrime 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 AlsoHorton 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:

CitedPrime 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

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 fromM’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: 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 fromAshpitel, 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 AsloAshpitel, 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

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 fromAshpitel (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:

AffirmedAshpitel, 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 AsloAshpitel (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, . .
AffirmedAshpitel, 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 fromM’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:

CitedPrime 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

Avon County Council v Howlett: CA 1983

The plaintiff, through its computerised system for the payment of wages, had overpaid the defendant to the extent of andpound;1,007. He had suffered an injury and been absent from work. The Council sought to recover the overpayment on the grounds that it had been paid by mistake.
Held: Since the plaintiff had discharged the onus of proving that the overpayment had occurred due to a mistake of fact, it was prima facie entitled to recover the full amount of the overpayment but because the plaintiff had represented to the defendant that he was entitled to the sum of money paid, the plaintiff were estopped from seeking recovery of the overpayment. Slade LJ said: ‘However, this point causes no difficulty for the defendant in the present case since the plaintiffs, as the defendant’s employers, in my opinion clearly owed him a duty not to misrepresent the amount of the pay to which he was entitled from time to time, unless the misrepresentations were caused by incorrect information given to them by the defendant.’
Estoppel cannot operate pro tanto. Therefore if a defendant has innocently changed his position by disposing of part of the money, a defence of estoppel would provide him with a defence to the whole of the claim.
The ordinary rule is that the detriment is not the measure of the representee’s relief, and need not be commensurate with the loss that he would suffer if the representor did resile.
Slade LJ continued: ‘Employers who pay their employees under a computerized system should not in my opinion assume from the decision of this court in the present case that, if they overpay their employees through some kind of mistake, they are entitled to recover it simply for the asking, provided only that they are not barred by estoppel or some other special defence. The borderline between mistakes of law and mistakes of fact is not clearly defined in the cases . . The learned authors of Goff and Jones’s Law of Restitution (2nd edn, 1978) p. 91 express the view that the principle in Bilbie v. Lumley (1802) 2 East 469, [1775-1802] All ER Rep. 425 should not preclude recovery of money which was paid in settlement of an honest claim and that any other payment made under a mistake of law should be recoverable, if it would have been recoverable had the mistake been one of fact. Nevertheless the distinction still exists in English law. I think the burden will still fall on an employer who seeks to recover an overpayment from an overpaid employee to satisfy the court that, on the balance of probabilities in all the circumstances of the case, it was a mistake of fact which gave rise to the overpayment.’

Judges:

Slade LJ

Citations:

[1983] 1 WLR 605, [1983] 1 All ER 1073

Cited by:

CitedLipkin 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 . .
CitedScottish Equitable v Derby 16-Mar-2001
The claimant company sought repayment of a sum paid in error to the defendant. She replied that she had changed her position as a result of and relying upon the payment.
Held: The court gave as ‘the most obvious example’ of the kind of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.259532

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:

CitedBinions 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:

CitedHunter 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 . .
CitedLevey, 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 . .
CitedLaing 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 . .
CitedMichael 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 . .
CitedMichael 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

Longman v Bath Electric Tramways Ltd: CA 1905

The reliance to be established by a person who seeks to raise an estoppel must be the proximate, direct or real loss (or detriment) which is asserted as part of the grounds for the estoppel.

Judges:

Stirling LJ

Citations:

[1905] 1 Ch 646

Cited by:

CitedCadbury 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: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.242178

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

Cited by:

CitedMeretz 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 . .
CitedBarrett 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:

CitedShelley’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:

CitedSerco 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:

CitedWiltshire 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

Stokes v Anderson: CA 1991

The claimant had made two payments, amounting together to andpound;12,000, towards the acquisition of the one half share of the defendant’s ex-wife in the net equity (valued at andpound;90,000) in a house in which the claimant and the respondent lived as husband and wife. ”This is a dispute between an unmarried couple as to the beneficial ownership of a house in which they formerly lived together; compare Gissing v Gissing and Grant v Edwards [The judge]decided that the woman was entitled to half the beneficial interest in the house. The man has now appealed to this court, contending that the woman has no beneficial interest, alternatively that it does not exceed 15% at the most.’
Held: The contributions were made pursuant to a joint intention that the woman should have an interest. As to its calculation: ‘Miss Anderson’s evidence was that Mr Stokes said that she was to have a beneficial interest in the property, he did not say what the extent of that interest was to be; she assumed that it would be 50%. There is no other evidence to suggest that the extent of Miss Anderson’s beneficial interest was ever discussed between herself and Mr Stokes.’ it was open to the judge on the evidence as a whole, to find a common intention that the property should be shared 50/50, ‘it is important to emphasise that he could only have done so by inference. Although the parties had orally made plain their common intention that Miss Anderson should have a beneficial interest in the property, the extent of it had never been discussed.’ The claimant’s share was reduced from the 50% which she had been awarded by the judge to 25%, because at the time when the claimant made her payments, Mr Stokes was already entitled to a one half share; the payments were made in order to acquire the other one half share from his ex-wife. As Lord Justice Nourse: ‘. . . to hold that Miss Anderson was entitled to half the beneficial interest in Stone Cottage . . . would be markedly unfair to Mr Stokes. On a broad approach, the only approach which can be made, I think that the fair view of all the circumstances is that Miss Anderson is entitled to a beneficial interest equivalent to one half of Mrs Stokes’ half-share, or one quarter of the whole, subject to the mortgage.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Nourse

Citations:

[1991] 1 FLR 391

Citing:

AppliedGissing v Gissing HL 7-Jul-1970
Evidence Needed to Share Benefical Inerests
The family home had been purchased during the marriage in the name of the husband only. The wife asserted that she had a beneficial interest in it.
Held: The principles apply to any case where a beneficial interest in land is claimed by a . .
CitedGrant v Edwards and Edwards CA 24-Mar-1986
A couple were not married but lived together in Vincent Farmhouse in which the plaintiff claimed a beneficial interest on separation. The female partner was told by the male partner that the only reason for not acquiring the property in joint names . .

Cited by:

CitedHyett v Stanley and others CA 20-Jun-2003
The couple had lived together at the property without being married for several years. The house was held in the man’s sole name, and after his death she sought a half share in it. It was established that she had been told she should have a half . .
CitedOxley v Hiscock CA 6-May-2004
The parties were not married, but had brought together their resources to purchase a home in the name of one of them. Nothing had been said about the respective shares on which the property was to be held.
Held: The shares were to be assessed . .
CitedVan Laethem v Brooker and Another ChD 12-Jul-2005
The claimant asserted an interest in several properties by virtue of a common intention constructive trust or by proprietary estoppel. The parties had been engaged to be married.
Held: ‘A [constructive] trust arises in connection with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Estoppel

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.197738

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:

CitedPenn-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 fromCarl 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. . .
CitedNouvion 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:

CitedGood 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 . .
CitedThe 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 . .
CitedWiltshire 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 . .
CitedGur 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 . .
CitedNorth 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 . .
CitedBarrett 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 . .
CitedDallah 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.
CitedCalzaghe 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 . .
CitedNML 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 . .
CitedJoint 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:

CitedPenn-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:

CitedOliver 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 . .
CitedPeyman 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 . .
CitedBolton 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 . .
CitedThe 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 . .
CitedWalbrook 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 . .
CitedGuangzhou 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:

CitedLow 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:

CitedDun 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 . .
CitedSuper 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

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 would have created a settlement, under which the claimant would have had the powers of a tenant for life. It suggested a long lease, determinable on her death at a nominal rent. Though the payment of a nominal rent was not contemplated when the representations were made, ‘perfect equity is seldom possible.’ The court ordered the grant of a long lease at a rent of andpound;30 per annum, determinable on the death of the tenant. The lease was to be non-assignable, and the other terms of the lease were to be agreed between the parties or, in default of agreement, determined by the county court.

Judges:

Goff LJ

Citations:

[1978] 2 EGLR 121

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedParker 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187550

Fung Kai Sun v Chang Fui Hing: PC 1951

The manager of real property owned by the respondents had fraudulently mortgaged it. Following discovery of their manager’s fraud the respondents had delayed for three weeks before telling the purported mortgagees of the forgery, as a result of which the latter complained that they had lost the opportunity during those weeks to take action against the manager.
Held: The respondents’ delay in giving them that information had been in breach of their legal duty and amounted to a contrary representation. Nevertheless there was no estoppel since the prejudice to the purported mortgagees had not been material.

Citations:

[1951] AC 489

Cited by:

CitedTimothy Ellis v London Borough of Lambeth CA 9-Jul-1999
A squatter claiming possession of land as against a local authority should not have his claim defeated because he had not completed a form which would lead to payment of community charge to the authority. His possession was not thereby made secret, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187457

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 prejudice’ but treated as if it were ‘subject to contract’
Held: ‘In the case of a normal arrangement to sell where there is no contract it would be virtually impossible to rely on the principle of proprietary estoppel’. An estoppel can arise in circumstances where an agreement ‘subject to contract’ has been made, but in order to do so, it must be based on something other than the ‘subject to contract’ agreement alone. In these very singular circumstances, the ‘irretrievably interwoven’ dealings were such that the defendant could not lawfully withdraw from the proposal for compulsory purchase of the old site.

Judges:

Woolf J

Citations:

(1980) 41 P and CR 179

Cited by:

ApprovedAttorney 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 . .
CitedConfetti 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 . .
CitedGonthier 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.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183740

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: ‘Estoppel is only a rule of evidence: you cannot found an action upon estoppel . . [It] . . is only important as being one step in the progress towards relief on the hypothesis that the defendant is estopped from denying the truth of something which he has said.’ and ‘The doctrine that negligent misrepresentation affords no cause of action is confined to cases in which there is no duty, such as the law recognises, to be careful.’ and ‘an estoppel, that is to say, the language upon which the estoppel is founded, must be precise and unambiguous. That does not necessarily mean that the language must be such that it cannot possibly be open to different interpretations, but it must be such that it will be reasonably understood in a particular sense by the person to whom it is addressed.’
Kay LJ said: ‘where no fraud is alleged, it is essential to shew that the statement was of such a nature that it would have misled any reasonable man, and that the Plaintiff was in fact misled by it.’

Judges:

Bowen LJ, Kay LJ

Citations:

[1891] 3 Ch 82

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedMutual Life And Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd And Another v Evatt PC 16-Nov-1971
The plaintiff had been an investor with the defendant. He asked them about an associated company. He was given advice which was incorrect. He claimed damages for negligence.
Held: The company was not itself in the business of giving such . .
CitedMutual Life And Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd And Another v Evatt PC 16-Nov-1971
The plaintiff had been an investor with the defendant. He asked them about an associated company. He was given advice which was incorrect. He claimed damages for negligence.
Held: The company was not itself in the business of giving such . .
CitedHedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
CitedWoodhouse 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Estoppel

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180908

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 if that party had appreciated its true legal effect, they are estopped from asserting that the effect was otherwise than the party originally supposed. He said that that submission could not be right and that he could not see how an erroneous belief as to the effect of the contract could properly be described as a ‘conventional basis for dealings’ so as to give rise to an estoppel, and ‘the jurisdiction to grant possession is exercisable only subject to the statutory provisions and it is a little difficult to see how the parties can, by estoppel , confer on the court a jurisdiction which they could not confer by express agreement’

Judges:

Oliver LJ

Citations:

[1984] 1 WLR 251, [1984] 1 All ER 75, (1983) 47 P and CR 639

Cited by:

CitedJ S Bloor (Measham) Ltd v Eric Myles Calcott ChD 23-Nov-2001
The tenant had claimed a tenancy under the Act. The landlord sought to assert a proprietary estoppel against them. There was nothing in the 1986 Act to stop the claimants relying on a proprietary estoppel and asserting their claims to occupation. . .
CitedWilson 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Estoppel

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180372

Barings Plc and Another v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and others: ChD 20 Mar 2002

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Evans-Lombe

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 461 (Ch), [2002] 2 BCLC 410

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSingularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd SC 30-Oct-2019
The Court was asked whether a claim against a bank for breach of the Quincecare duty is defeated if the customer is a company, and the fraudulent payment instructions are given by the company’s Chairman and sole shareholder who is the dominating . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Estoppel

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.170000

Wain v Sherwood and Sons Transport Ltd: CA 4 Jun 1998

Plaintiff, having succeeded in claim for damage to his car, was subject to an action estoppel, since he could have had the additional claim for personal injury damages settled at the same time. A mistake by his adviser which fell short of being actionable but which resulted in a party not being able to pursue a remedy was not enough to set aside an issue estoppel having once litigated the matter.

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-1998, Gazette 24-Jun-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 905

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedHenderson 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90231

Wake v Page and Another: CA 9 Feb 2001

Insurers were quite entitled to insist upon service of the statutory seven day notice of an intention to sue. In the absence of a notice very were not liable even though they were fully aware of the possibility of action. However regrettable it was there was no representation from the Insurers that they would waive their right for formal notice, and no equitable estoppel arose. A prudent solicitor would be well advised to ensure that the insurance company received written notice within seven days after the commencement of proceedings.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Feb-2001, [2001] RTR 291

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNawaz and Another v Crowe Insurance Group CA 24-Feb-2003
The claimant had claimed aganst the driver, but gave notice of the intention to make a claim on his insurance by telephone only. The insurers repudiated liability.
Held: Whilst solicitors would be strongly advised to give such notice in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Estoppel, Litigation Practice, Road Traffic

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90234

Lowe v Lombank Ltd: CA 1960

A false statement made about a matter of past fact could not operate either as an estoppel by representation or (where the fact is expressed as an agreement) a contractual estoppel. The court set out three criteria for an evidential estoppel: it must be shown that:
(a) The clause (acknowledgement) was clear and unambiguous;
(b) that the representee had intended the representor to act on the statements in the clause; and
(c) that the representor must have entered into the contract in the belief that they were true.

Judges:

Diplock J

Citations:

[1960] 1 WLR 196

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWatford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd CA 23-Feb-2001
The plaintiff had contracted to purchase software from the respondent. The system failed to perform, and the defendant sought to rely upon its exclusion and limitation of liability clauses.
Held: It is for the party claiming that a contract . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Estoppel

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.187203

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 should be satisfied by the grant of a lease on the terms of the draft.

Citations:

[1986] 1 EGLR 265

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedParker 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.187549

Youell v Bland Welch and Co Ltd (‘The Superhulls Cover-Case) (No 2): QBD 1990

In estoppel it is necessary for there to have been an unequivocal representation of fact by words or conduct: ‘A party can represent that he will not enforce a specific legal right by words or conduct. He can say so expressly – this of course he can only do if he is aware of the right. Alternatively he can adopt a course of conduct which is inconsistent with the exercise of that right. Such a course of conduct will only constitute a representation that he will not exercise the right if the circumstances are such to suggest either that he was aware of the right when he embarked on the course of conduct inconsistent with it or that he was content to abandon any rights he might enjoy which were inconsistent with that course of conduct.’

Citations:

[1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 431

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See alsoYouell v Bland Welch and Co Ltd (No 1) QBD 1990
The insurance slip was superseded by a formal policy. This was agreed but the defendant reinsurers submitted that the slip could be looked at as an aid to the construction of the policy.
Held: It was inadmissible: ‘The drafting of the slip . .

Cited by:

CitedAneco Reinsurance Underwriting Limited (In Liquidation) (a Body Incorporate Under the Laws of Bermuda) v Johnson and Higgins Limited HL 18-Oct-2001
Brokers contracted to obtain re-insurance of risks undertaken by the claimants. They negligently failed to obtain full cover. The question at issue was whether they were liable for the full loss, or whether their duty was limited to obtaining . .
See alsoYouell v Bland Welch and Co Ltd (No 1) QBD 1990
The insurance slip was superseded by a formal policy. This was agreed but the defendant reinsurers submitted that the slip could be looked at as an aid to the construction of the policy.
Held: It was inadmissible: ‘The drafting of the slip . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.181787

Watt v Dignan and Others: CA 5 Oct 2017

The parties disputed the continued existence of rights to use a toilet. The servient owner sought to establish an estoppel.
Held: The appeal failed.

Judges:

Gloster VP CA, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1390

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRoutestone Ltd v Minories Finance ChD 1996
A receiver’s management duties will ordinarily impose on him no general duty to exercise the power of sale, or to ‘work’ an estate by refurbishing it before sale. Speaking of the role of an expert witness ‘What really matters in most cases are the . .
CitedLester and Another v Woodgate and Another CA 9-Mar-2010
Sherwell was entitled to a right of way over land belonging to Mr Mees. Mr Mees carried out work to the route over which the right of way ran which made it unusable. The work that he carried out amounted to an actionable nuisance. Sherwell made no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Estoppel

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595819

Camerata Property Inc v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd: ComC 20 Jan 2012

Application to strike out paragraphs in claim associated with Lehman Bothers for issue estoppel.

Judges:

Flaux J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 7 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoCamerata Property Inc v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd ComC 23-Jan-2013
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.450479

The August Leonhardt: CA 1985

For an estoppel by convention, a common understanding must actually be communicated by one party to the other: ‘All estoppels must involve some statement or conduct by the party alleged [to be estoppel on which the alleged representee was entitled] to rely and did rely. In this sense all estoppels may be regarded as requiring some manifest representation which crosses the line between representor and representee, either by statement or conduct.’

Judges:

Kerr LJ

Citations:

[1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSmithkline 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: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.242625

Midland Bank Ltd v Farmpride Hatcheries: CA 1980

A mortgage had been granted, but a twenty year rent free licence had not been disclosed. The bank came to seek possession, and was met with the assertion of the licence. The court at first instance had refused an injunction, saying that the appellant had behaved unconscionably in failing to disclose the licence.
Held: The appellant was estopped from relying upon the licence since he had himself procured the mortgage. The bank was not fixed with notice under section 199 of the Act.

Citations:

(1981) 260 EG 493

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Estoppel

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.219182

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 estoppel. The court asked the question of whether in establishing an obligation to make a disposition in a will, an express promise had to be found.
Held: Where the assurances relied on fall significantly short of express promises made in terms as such, it will be all the more important for the claimant to be able to support his case with clear and substantial detrimental reliance, and perhaps with evidence from others corroborating the meaning and intention which he (the claimant) imputes to the deceased’s words or actions. An estoppel had arisen in this case by the father’s conduct. In the circumstances of this estate the expectation created could be fulfilled without causing injustice to other beneficiaries, by applying the minimum equity principle.

Judges:

John Randall QC

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2422 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedGillett 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 . .
CitedInwards 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 . .
CitedRamsden 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 . .
CitedUglow 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 . .
CitedWayling 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:

Appeal fromThorner 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: . .
At First InstanceThorner 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.

Wills and Probate, Estoppel

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.260349

Lissimore v Downing: ChD 31 Mar 2003

The claimant asserted an estoppel in land registered in the name of the defendant.
Held: Unspecific statements made by the defendant that ‘she would never want for anything’, or that ‘he would take care of her’, or that ‘he had looked after his other girlfriends and she would not be different’ did not found a proprietary estoppel: ‘Such statements do not on their face relate to any specific property, they plainly do not amount to a representation which binds the whole of Mr Downing’s property, and they are not expressed in terms which enable any objective assessment to be made of what is being promised. In this last respect they are to be contrasted with statements made to unpaid or underpaid workers or business partners, encouraged to work on because they would be ‘treated right’, and for whom a commensurate reward could be objectively assessed.’

Judges:

Norris QC J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC B1 (Ch), [2003] 2 FLR 308, [2003] Fam Law 566

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoDowning v Lissimore CA 6-Nov-2002
Application for order to reflect interest of cohabiting partner in house. . .

Cited by:

CitedJames v Thomas CA 23-Nov-2007
The claimant sought an interest in the property registered in the sole name of the respondent. The respondent had inherited a share in the property, and then bought out the interests of his siblings with support of a loan. The claimant had made no . .
CitedYeoman’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.

Trusts, Estoppel

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.263204

Parry v Edwards Geldard (A Firm): ChD 1 May 2001

The court had to decide the measure of damages. The claimant had lost the opportunity to acquire without charge a milk quota. The claimant asserted an estoppel by convention. This failed. Also the judge had not properly allowed for the marriage value of changes in the value of a second plot becoming used in conjunction with nearby land.

[2001] EWHC Ch 427
Bailii
Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1994
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAmalgamated 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Damages, Estoppel

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.135476

Matchmove Ltd v Dowding and Another: CA 7 Dec 2016

Appeal against a finding that an oral agreement for the purchase of land was effective through a proprietary estopple and a constructive trust.

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lloyd Jones LJ and Arnold J
[2016] EWCA Civ 1233
Bailii
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2(5)
England and Wales

Land, Contract, Equity, Estoppel

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.572005

Spire Healthcare Ltd v Brooke: QBD 11 Nov 2016

The claimant, Spire, claimed an indemnity or contribution from the defendantin respect of damages and costs which it, Spire, has paid to Mr Jellett in settlement of a personal injuries claim brought by Mr Jellett against both Spire and Mr Brooke

Morris J
[2016] EWHC 2828 (QB)
Bailii
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
England and Wales

Limitation, Estoppel

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571117

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 years after conviction for IRA pub bombings in Birmingham.
Held: This was a collateral attack amounting to an abuse of process, not because of the limits of police immunity, but to provide an effective immunity. The purpose of the action was not in truth to obtain damages from the Chief Constable but to undermine the conviction. Unless debarred from doing so, defendants convicted after a full and fair trial who failed to appeal successfully, may challenge their convictions by suing advocates who appeared for them. Public policy requires a defendant, who seeks to challenge his conviction, to do so directly by seeking to appeal his conviction.
Lord Diplock said: ‘My Lords, this is a case about abuse of the process of the High Court. It concerns the inherent power which any court of justice must possess to prevent misuse of its procedure in a way which, although not inconsistent with the literal application of its procedural rules, would nevertheless be manifestly unfair to a party to litigation before it, or would otherwise bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right-thinking people. The circumstances in which abuse of process can arise are very varied; those which give rise to the instant appeal must surely be unique. It would, in my view, be most unwise if this House were to use this occasion to say anything that might be taken as limiting to fixed categories the kinds of circumstances in which the court has a duty (I disavow the word discretion) to exercise this salutary power.’
. . And ‘The abuse of process which the instant case exemplifies is the initiation of proceedings in a court of justice for the purpose of mounting a collateral attack upon a final decision against the intending plaintiff which has been made by another court of competent jurisdiction in previous proceedings in which the intending plaintiff had a full opportunity of contesting the decision in the court by which it was made.’

Lord Diplock, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Roskill, Lord Brandon
[1982] AC 529, [1981] 3 WLR 906, [1981] UKHL 13, [1981] 3 All ER 727
Bailii
Civil Evidence Act 1968 11
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedReichel 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 . .
CitedStevenson v Garnett 1898
AL Smith LJ: ‘The court ought to be slow to strike out a statement of claim or defence, and to dismiss an action as frivolous and vexatious yet it ought to do so when as here, it has been shown that the identical question sought to be raised has . .
Appeal fromMcIlkenny v Chief Constable of the West Midlands CA 1980
The appellant had been convicted of an IRA bombing, causing loss of many lives. The appellant and his other co-accused alleged that their confessions had been induced by police violence. The trial judge ruled that their confessions were voluntary . .

Cited by:
CitedGribbon 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 . .
CitedThe Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow CA 11-Mar-2003
The Secretary of State attempted, in the course of director’s disqualification proceedings, to rely upon findings made against Mr Bairstow in an earlier wrongful dismissal action to which he had been a party but the Secretary of State not. The . .
CitedSmith v Linskills CA 1996
The claimant, a convicted burglar took proceedings against his former solicitors. He alleged that the negligence of the solicitor caused his wrongful conviction.
Held: The case was dismissed. The claimant was seeking to re-litigate issues . .
CitedArthur JS Hall and Co (A Firm) v Simons; Barratt v Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Harris v Schofield Roberts and Hill (A Firm) HL 20-Jul-2000
Clients sued their solicitors for negligence. The solicitors responded by claiming that, when acting as advocates, they had the same immunities granted to barristers.
Held: The immunity from suit for negligence enjoyed by advocates acting in . .
CitedDarker v Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police HL 1-Aug-2000
The plaintiffs had been indicted on counts alleging conspiracy to import drugs and conspiracy to forge traveller’s cheques. During the criminal trial it emerged that there had been such inadequate disclosure by the police that the proceedings were . .
CitedSweetman 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: . .
CitedRegina v Chichester Justices ex parte Crowther Admn 14-Oct-1998
The defendant sought judicial review of an order made in 1998 issuing a warrant for his committal for failure to pay a confiscation order made in 1991. He had served 6 years imprisonment, and in default of payment a further 18 months. He was . .
CitedGood 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 . .
CitedKent Pharmaceuticals Ltd, (Regina on the Application of ) v Serious Fraud Office and Another Admn 17-Dec-2003
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to disclose documents obtained by it from them during an investigation.
Held: The decisions to disclose material to the DoH were ‘in accordance with law’ within the meaning . .
CitedPolanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd HL 10-Feb-2005
The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held . .
CitedRegina v Shanks CACD 19-Mar-2003
The appellant appealed his conviction for murder. He had shot his lover as she walked away from an argument. The fact of his conviction following mention of a guilty plea to possession of the firearm was complained of.
Held: The judge had . .
CitedRegina v Leeds Magistrates Court ex parte Serif Systems Limited and Hamilton Admn 9-Oct-1997
The applicant sought that summonses be set aside as an abuse of process, being begun to embarrass him as he set out to become an MP. Thirty one private summonses had been issued.
Held: Of the summonses to be continued it could not be said that . .
CitedLevey, 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 . .
CitedRegina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
CitedLaing 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 . .
CitedJohnson 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 . .
CitedTaylor Walton (A Firm) v Laing CA 15-Nov-2007
The appellants appealed against a refusal to strike out as an abuse of process the respondent’s claim against them for professional negligence in the drafting of development agreements.
Buxton LJ considered the nature of the enquiry on such an . .
CitedAshley and Another v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL 23-Apr-2008
The claimants sought to bring an action for damages after a family member suspected of dealing drugs, was shot by the police. At the time he was naked. The police officer had been acquitted by a criminal court of murder. The chief constable now . .
CitedIn re Norris, Application by Norris HL 28-Jun-2001
The applicant’s husband had been made the subject of a drugs confiscation order. Part of this was an order against the house. She had failed in asserting that the house was hers. Her appeal to a civil court had been disallowed as an abuse. It was . .
CitedSpecialist 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 . .
CitedCheltenham Borough Council v Laird QBD 15-Jun-2009
The council sought damages saying that their former chief executive had not disclosed her history of depressive illness when applying for her job.
Held: The replies were not dishonest as the form could have been misconstrued. The claim failed. . .
CitedCalzaghe 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 . .
CitedVaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others QBD 11-Apr-2013
The claimant sought an order to restrain anticipated defamatory comments and evidence to be given to an employment tribunal.
Held: It could not be said as the claimant asserted that dfeences were bound to fail, and no determination should be . .
CitedHi-Lite Electrical Ltd v Wolseley UK Ltd QBD 17-Jul-2009
The claimant sought a contribution from the defendant towards its liability for a fire at its premises, as found in earlier proceedings against the now claimant. The defendant had filed a defence merely not admitting, and not denying, responsibility . .
CitedOMV Petrom Sa v Glencore International Ag ComC 7-Feb-2014
The claimant sought to have struck out as abuse of process parts of the defence, saying that the factual issues raised had already been resolved in arbitration proceedings, but as against a different oarty. The defendant replied that the arbitration . .
CitedMichael 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 . .
CitedSpicer v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 6-Jul-2020
The claimant alleged defamation. He had been acquitted of a criminal offence and said that material published by the defendant continued to imply or assert his guilt of the offence. The defendant argued truth. The claimant now sought a strike out of . .
CitedAmin v Director General of The Security Service and Others CA 26-Jun-2015
The claimant’s claims against the police had been struck out as a collateral attack on a criminal court decision.
Held: ‘If the former decision was made in criminal proceedings leading to a conviction, it is proper to focus attention on the . .
CitedAmin v Director General of The Security Service (MI5) and Others QBD 26-Jun-2013
The claimant sought damages for personal injury and false imprisonment.
Held: The claim was struck out as an abuse of process. There was an overlap with findings made against him in the Crown Court in a voir dire taking place in the course of . .
CitedTakhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and Others SC 20-Mar-2019
The claimant appellant alleged that properties she owned were transferred to the first defendant under undue influence or other unconscionable conduct by the second and third defendants. The claim was dismissed. Three years later she claimed to set . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Police, Estoppel

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.181062

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 unable to challenge his decision on appeal. Later cases threw doubt on his construction. The question was whether the rules governing issue estoppel were subject to exceptions which would permit the matter to be reopened. The landlords issued proceedings on the new understanding. The tenant sought an order striking out the action, claiming an issue estoppel.
Held: Though issue estoppel operated as a complete bar to a subsequent action, some special circumstances existed to allow a subsequent claim where new information came to light. Reasonable diligence in the first action could not have prevented the situation. It did not relate to factual circumstances, but rather an error by the judge, and it would not be just to prevent the second action.
Lord Keith of Kinkel said as to cause of action estoppel: ‘It is appropriate to commence by noticing the distinction between cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel. Cause of action estoppel arises where the cause of action in the later proceedings is identical to that in the earlier proceedings, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter. In such a case the bar is absolute in relation to all points decided unless fraud or collusion is alleged, such as to justify setting aside the earlier judgment. The discovery of new factual matter which could not have been found out by reasonable diligence for use in the earlier proceedings does not, according to the law of England, permit the latter to be re-opened. The rule in Scotland, which recognises the doctrine of res noviter veniens ad notitiam, is different: see Phosphate Sewage Co. Ltd v Molleson (1879) 4 App. Cas. 801, 814, per Lord Cairns L.C. There is no authority there, however, for the view that a change in the law can constitute res noviter. The principles upon which cause of action estoppel is based are expressed in the maxims nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa and interest rei publicae ut finis sit litium. Cause of action estoppel extends also to points which might have been but were not raised and decided in the earlier proceedings for the purpose of establishing or negativing the existence of a cause of action.’ and
and ’cause of action estoppel . . prevents a party from asserting or denying as against the other party, the existence of a particular cause of action, the existence or non-existence of which has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in previous litigation between the same parties. If the cause of action was determined to exist, i.e. judgment was given on it, it is said to be merged in the judgment. If it was determined not to exist, the unsuccessful plaintiff can no longer assert that it does: he is estopped per rem judicatam.’
As to issue estoppel: ‘Issue estoppel, too, has been extended to cover not only the case where a particular point has been raised and specifically determined in the earlier proceedings, but also that where in the subsequent proceedings it is sought to raise a point which might have been but was not raised in the earlier.’
As to whether there were any exceptions: ‘In my opinion your Lordships should affirm it to be the law that there may an exception to issue estoppel in the special circumstance that there has become available to a party further material relevant to the correct determination of a point involved in the earlier proceedings, whether or not that point was specifically raised and decided, being material which could not by reasonable diligence have been adduced in those proceedings. One of the purposes of estoppel being to work justice between the parties, it is open to courts to recognise that in special circumstances inflexible application of it may have the opposite result.’
Lord Keith of Kinkel concluded: ‘But there is room for the view that the underlying principles upon which estoppel is based, public policy and justice, have greater force in cause of action estoppel, where the subject matter is different. Once it is accepted that different considerations apply to issue estoppel, it is hard to perceive any logical distinction between a point which was previously raised and decided and one which might have been but was not. Given that the further material which would have put an entirely different complexion on the point was at the earlier stage unknown to the party and could not by reasonable diligence have been discovered by him, it is hard to see why there should be a different result according to whether he decided not to take the point, thinking it hopeless, or argue it faintly without any real hope of success. In my opinion your Lordships should affirm it to be the law that there may be an exception to issue estoppel in the special circumstance that there has become available to a party further material relevant to the correct determination of a point involved in the earlier proceedings, whether or not that point was specifically raised and decided, being material which could not by reasonable diligence have been adduced in those proceedings. One of the purposes of estoppel being to work justice between the parties, it is open to courts to recognise that in special circumstances inflexible application of it may have the opposite result, as was observed by Lord Upjohn in the passage which I have quoted above from his speech in the Carl Zeiss case [1967] 1 AC 853, 947.’

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Griffiths, Lord Oliver of Aylemton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
[1991] 2 AC 93, [1991] 3 All ER 41, [1991] 2 WLR 1177
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedHenderson 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 . .
AppliedMills 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 . .
AppliedProperty and Reversionary Investment Corporation v Templar CA 1977
A party sought leave to appeal out of time in reliance on an intervening decision of the House of Lords.
Held: A change in the understanding of the law would not suffice in the absence of special circumstances. . .

Cited by:
CitedRothschild 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 . .
CitedGood 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 . .
CitedAhsan v Carter CA 28-Jul-2005
The claimant sought to assert race discrimination by the Labour Party in not selecting him as a political candidate. The defendant, chairman of the party appealed.
Held: A political party when selecting candidates was not acting as a . .
CitedMoody and Another v Condor Insurance Ltd and Another ChD 3-Feb-2006
The claimants sought to enforce a deed of guarantee. The defendants argued that the claimant had no entitlement to enforce the deed, not being parties to it, and that they would be able to set aside the deed as against the company whose debts they . .
CitedMeretz 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 . .
CitedSpecial Effects Ltd v L’Oreal Sa and Another CA 12-Jan-2007
The defendants had opposed the grant of the trade mark which they were now accused of infringing. The claimants said that having failed at the opposition stage, they were now estopped from challenging the validity of the mark.
Held: It was not . .
CitedJohnson 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 . .
CitedCampbell 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 . .
CitedSpecialist 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 . .
CitedSchellenberg v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 2000
The claimant had settled defamation actions against the Guardian and the Sunday Times on disadvantageous terms, when it seemed likely that he was about to lose. He then pressed on with this almost identical action against the BBC.
Held: A . .
CitedCoke-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 . .
CitedFoster v Bon Groundwork Ltd EAT 17-Mar-2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
In April 2009, the Claimant, who was then 77 years of age, was employed by the Respondent, when he was laid off without pay. While still being employed by . .
CitedVirgin 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 . .
CitedMoorjani and Others v Durban Estates Ltd and Another TCC 15-May-2019
Allegations of breach of landlords’ repairing obligations – defendants’ strike out application.
Held: ‘ the critical question is whether this second action is based on the same cause, or causes, of action, and not whether it pleads the same . .
CitedCo-Operative Group v Virk (Valuation Officer) UTLC 22-Oct-2020
Abuse of Process in Rating Alterations
Rating – Alteration of Rating List – validity of proposal challenging alteration to list made by VO to give effect to agreement – application to strike out appeals from the Valuation Tribunal for Wales and Valuation Tribunal for England – res . .
CitedTakhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and Others SC 20-Mar-2019
The claimant appellant alleged that properties she owned were transferred to the first defendant under undue influence or other unconscionable conduct by the second and third defendants. The claim was dismissed. Three years later she claimed to set . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.180557

McIlkenny v Chief Constable of the West Midlands: CA 1980

The appellant had been convicted of an IRA bombing, causing loss of many lives. The appellant and his other co-accused alleged that their confessions had been induced by police violence. The trial judge ruled that their confessions were voluntary and they were accordingly convicted. The appellant now brought a civil claim against the police for damages for assault based on the alleged violence inflicted in the course of extracting his confession.
Held: Prima facie, re-litigation of an issue which has previously been finally decided by a court of competent jurisdiction is an abuse of process.
The court refused to allow the case to go ahead because the allegations were so serious they could not be believed. Lord Denning MR said: ‘This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say: It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.
The Court of Appeal has no function or power to make a pronouncement of innocence. It may observe that the effect of the material considered in the course of the appeal is demonstrative of innocence but it has no statutory function to make a finding to that effect.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘It has long been recognised that estoppel per rem judicatam or issue estoppel is not an absolute bar to the matter in dispute being tried again. The party concerned can avoid the effect of the previous decision if he can prove the same to have been obtained by fraud or collusion. That was the unanimous opinion of the judges in the Duchess of Kingston’s Case. To which we can add now that the party concerned can avoid the effect of the previous decision if he can show that a new fact has come to light (which he could not have ascertained before by reasonable diligence) which entirely changes the aspect of the case: see Phosphate Sewage Co Ltd v Molleson (1879) 4 App Cas 801, 814 per Earl Cairns LC. This is a much stricter test than we require when we admit fresh evidence on an appeal.’
Reginald Goff LJ said: ‘In my judgment, however, where the issue at the first trial was which of two parties or their witnesses was committing perjury, it is not sufficient merely to aver that the judgment was obtained by perjury since that is no more than to say the decision ought to have gone the other way. There must be sufficient fresh evidence to support the allegation.’

Lord Denning MR, Reginald Goff LJ, Sir George Baker
[1980] QB 283, [1980] 2 All ER 227, [1980] 2 WLR 689
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Appeal fromHunter 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 . .
CitedAdams, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 11-May-2011
The three claimants had each been convicted of murders and served time. Their convictions had been reversed eventually, and they now appealed against the refusal of compensation for imprisonment, saying that there had been a miscarriage of justice. . .
CitedNunn v Suffolk Constabulary and Another Admn 4-May-2012
The claimant had been convicted of murder and his appeal had failed. He now sought disclosure of the forensic material held by the police to his own legal team.
Held: Permission to apply for review was granted, but the claim failed. ‘It is . .
CitedTakhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and Others SC 20-Mar-2019
The claimant appellant alleged that properties she owned were transferred to the first defendant under undue influence or other unconscionable conduct by the second and third defendants. The claim was dismissed. Three years later she claimed to set . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other, Estoppel

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.192247

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 licensee and a licensor to enter into a deal memo followed by a long form contract, but the deal memo’s and contract are not of a standard form. The circumstances are not so strong and exceptional as to displace the conventional meaning of the phrase ‘subject to contract’. The burden was on the Defendant to establish any custom or usage within the industry to the effect that ‘subject to contract’ does not bear the meaning it bears in normal legal usage. That burden was not discharged. The fact that a party to an agreement ‘subject to contract’ acts on the faith of that agreement does not raise any estoppel as to the existence of a binding contract. In this case there had been representations and acts in reliance upon those expectations. An estoppel was created, and a contract concluded. There was accordingly no action for copyright infringement.
The claimant also sought damages for the derogatory treatment of his work. That was claimable only if his reputation was damaged. The court had the faintly surreal experience of three gentlemen in horsehair wigs examining the meaning of such phrases as ‘mish mish man’ and ‘shizzle (or sizzle) my nizzle’, but there was no evidence of the author’s reputation or damage to it.

The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison
[2003] EWCh 1274 (Ch), Times 12-Jun-2003
Bailii
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 80 97(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWinn v Bull ChD 19-Nov-1877
By an agreement in writing, the defendant agreed with the plaintiff to take a lease of a house. The other details were included, but the agreement was ‘subject to the preparation and approval of a formal contract’. The plaintiff sought specific . .
CitedChillingworth 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 . .
CitedRossdale v Denny CA 1921
The plaintiff offered in writing to purchase a leasehold house, but the letter was to take effect ‘on signing of a formal contract’ and ‘This offer is subject to a formal contract to embody such reasonable provisions as my solicitors may approve’. . .
CitedVon Hatzfeldt-Wildensburg v Alexander ChD 26-Jul-1911
A purchaser wrote offering to purchase a house, saying acceptance was subject to her solicitor approving title, covenants, lease and form of contract.
Held: It was not a complete contract capable of enforcement: ‘It appears to be well settled . .
CitedCarlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co CA 7-Dec-1892
Unilateral Contract Liability
The defendants advertised ‘The Carbolic Smoke Ball,’ in the Pall Mall Gazette, saying ‘pounds 100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds, or any disease caused by . .
CitedVon Hatzfeldt-Wildensburg v Alexander ChD 26-Jul-1911
A purchaser wrote offering to purchase a house, saying acceptance was subject to her solicitor approving title, covenants, lease and form of contract.
Held: It was not a complete contract capable of enforcement: ‘It appears to be well settled . .
CitedMichael Richards Properties Ltd v Corporation of Wardens of St Saviour’s Parish Southwark 1975
Property was offered for sale by tender. The tender documents contained all the detailed terms upon which the contract was to be based. The successful tender was accepted by letter, but by mistake the secretary who typed it typed in the words . .
CitedMunton v Greater London Council CA 1976
With respect to the words ‘subject to contract’, Lord Denning said, ‘It is of the greatest importance that no doubt should be thrown on the effect of those words’. As to the difference netween the procedures of compulsory purchase and ordinary . .
CitedSalvation 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 . .
CitedPasterfield v Denham ChD 1999
Distortion or mutilation is only actionable under the section if it is prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation. . .
CitedMount Eden Land Ltd v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd CA 12-Nov-1996
The Court warned against extending the ‘magic’ of the ‘subject to contract’ label into the realm of unilateral licences. The question was whether a landlord had granted licence to the tenant to carry out alterations. The letter relied on as . .
CitedInterfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd CA 12-Nov-1987
Incorporation of Onerous Terms Requires More Care
Photographic transparencies were hired out to the advertising agency defendant. The contract clauses on the delivery note included a fee which was exorbitant for the retention of transparencies beyond the set date.
Held: The plaintiff had not . .
CitedAlpenstow Ltd v Regalian Properties plc ChD 1985
The parties agreed in writing for the sale of land, the agreement contained a right of pre-emption. In the event of the owner wishing to sell it was to offer to sell a share in the property by notice. Within 28 days of the notice, the grantee was to . .
CitedWestern Electric Ltd v Welsh Development Agency 1983
An offer to grant a licence to occupy land may be accepted by taking up occupation. . .
CitedCohen v Nessdale Ltd CA 1982
Once negotiations are begun ‘subject to contract’, that label governs all subsequent communications between the parties unless the label is expunged by express agreement or by necessary implication. . .
CitedAttorney 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Media, Estoppel, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.183288

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 own money in building on the strength of assurances, said to have been given to them by the landowner’s agent, that they would never be disturbed.
Held: The decision was overturned. The difference of opinion was over an issue of fact, that is the substance of what was said on the occasion when some tenants agreed to be tenants at lower rents than were being paid by other tenants of Sir John Ramsden.
Lord Kingsdown, dissenting on the facts, said: ‘The rule of law applicable to the case appears to me to be this; if a man, under a verbal agreement with a landlord for a certain interest in land, or what amounts to the same thing, under an expectation, created or encouraged by the landlord, that he shall have a certain interest, takes possession of such land, with the consent of the landlord, and upon the faith of such promise or expectation, with the knowledge of the landlord, and without objection by him, lays out money upon the land, a Court of equity will compel the landlord to give effect to such promise or expectation. This was the principle of the decision in Gregory v. Mighell 18 Ves. 328, and, as I conceive, is open to no doubt.’ Even if there were uncertainty as to the terms of the contract, a court of equity could nevertheless interfere in order to prevent fraud but that it was unclear what, in that case, the remedy should be. The choices were between the grant of a specific interest in the land and the grant of a restitutionary remedy such as monetary compensation.
Lord Cranworth LC said: ‘If any one makes an assurance to another, with or without consideration, that he will do or will abstain from doing a particular act, but he refuses to bind himself, and says that for the performance of what he has promised the person to whom the promise has been made must rely on the honour of the person who has made it, this excludes the jurisdiction of Courts of equity no less than of Courts of law.’

Lord Cranworth LC, Lord Wensleydale and Lord Westbury, Lord Kingsdown dissenting
[1866] LR 1 HL 129, [1866] 12 Jur NS 506, [1866] UKLawRpHL 7
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedTaylors 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 . .
CitedGonthier 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 . .
CitedHoliday Inns Inc v Broadhead 1974
The parties negotiated for a lease, but never signed a contract. The plaintiff expended considerable sums to try to get planning, and once acquired it sought to buy the land, and claimed that Mr Broadhead had taken an unconscionable advantage, . .
CitedCobbe 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 . .
CriticisedCrabb 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 . .
FollowedInwards 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 . .
CitedWillmott v Barber ChD 19-Jun-1880
In 1869 Barber granted a 99-year lease of three acres of land in east London, subject to a covenant against assignment or sub-letting without consent. In 1874, in breach of covenant, he sub-let one acre on an annual tenancy to Willmott (who owned a . .
CitedStrover and Another v Strover and Another ChD 10-May-2005
Insurance policies had been taken out by the partners in a firm. The surviving family of one and the remaining partners contested ownership. The policy was held in part for the benefit of the family. The premiums had been paid from partnership . .
CitedVehicles 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 . .
CitedUglow 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 . .
CitedThorner 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 . .
CitedYeoman’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 . .
CitedThorner 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: . .
CitedThorner 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 . .
CitedWestern Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Landlord and Tenant, Equity

Leading Case

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.188171

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 planning application, no determination had been made.
Held: The procedure of making a determination had important consequences. It was one stage of a statutory process, which required for several reasons that there first should be a planning application. Nor, here was there any material upon which as estoppel could be raised against the council. Estoppels may bind individuals, where it would unconscionable for them to deny what they had represented or agreed. But those private law concepts should not be extended into the public law of planning control, which bound everyone. Attempts to reconcile the law of estoppel in private and public law contexts were unsatisfactory.
Lord Hoffmann: ‘Public law can also take into account the hierarchy of individual rights which exist under the Human Rights Act 1998, so that, for example, the individual’s right to a home is accorded a high degree of protection . . while ordinary property rights are in general far more limited by considerations of public interest . . .’

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Scott of Foscote
Times 05-Mar-2002, [2002] UKHL 8, [2003] 1 WLR 348, [2002] 4 All ER 58, [2002] 10 EGCS 158, [2003] 1 P and CR 5, [2002] JPL 821, [2002] NPC 32
House of Lords, Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1964 64, Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (SI 1988 No 1813)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedNewbury 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 . .
CitedWestern Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .
Appeal fromRegina v East Sussex County Council (ex parte Reprotech (Pebsham) Limited) Admn 30-Jul-1999
Where an application for an alteration in a planning permission would mean also that the original use for which permission had been granted would need alteration, a local authority was correct to treat the new use as if it had been a use ancillary . .

Cited by:
CitedBloggs 61, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 18-Jun-2003
The applicant sought review of a decision to remove him from a witness protection scheme within the prison. He claimed that having been promised protection, he had a legitimate expectation of protection, having been told he would receive protection . .
CitedRowland v The Environment Agency CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimant owned a house by the river Thames at Hedsor Water. Public rights of navigation existed over the Thames from time immemorial, and its management lay with the respondent. Landowners at Hedsor had sought to assert that that stretch was now . .
CitedStancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority QBD 22-Jun-2004
The claimants sought a declaration. Planning permission had been confirmed for four mineral extraction sites by letter in 1952. In 1996, two were listed as now being dormant. The claimant said the letter of 1952 created on single planning permision . .
CitedSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v M HL 8-Mar-2006
The respondent’s child lived with the estranged father for most of each week. She was obliged to contribute child support. She now lived with a woman, and complained that because her relationship was homosexual, she had been asked to pay more than . .
CitedYeoman’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 . .
CitedGrimsby Institute of Further and Higher Education, Regina (on The Application of) v Learning and Skills Council Admn 12-Aug-2010
The applicant had applied to the respondent for funding for new buildings. The application was approved, but the application was rejected when the respondent ran out of funds. The claimant said that a legitimate expectation had been created, and . .
CitedFinucane, Re Application for Judicial Review SC 27-Feb-2019
(Northern Ireland) The deceased solicitor was murdered in his home in 1989, allegedly by loyalists. They had never been identified, though collusion between security forces and a loyalist paramilitary was established. The ECHR and a judge led . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Estoppel, Human Rights

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.167713