Wells v Minister of Housing and Local Government: CA 1967

It had been the practice of planning authorities, acting through their officers, to tell applicants whether or not planning permission was necessary. A letter was written by the Council Engineer telling the applicants that no permission was necessary. The applicants acted on it.
Held: The planning authority could not go back on it. Lord Denning MR said: ‘It has been their practice to tell applicants that no planning permission is necessary. Are they now to be allowed to say that this practice was all wrong and their letters were of no effect? I do not think so. I take the law to be that a defect in procedure can be cured and an irregularity can be waived, even by a public authority, so as to render valid that which would otherwise be invalid.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Lord Justice Megaw

Citations:

[1967] 1 WLR 1000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLever (Finance) Ltd v City of Westminster CA 22-Jul-1970
The appellant developers had obtained detailed planning approval for fourteen houses, but after adjustments for a building line, moving several properties distances of several feet toward other properties, further plans were submitted without . .
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.

Planning, Estoppel

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.443221

Southend-on-Sea Corporation v Hodgson (Wickford) Ltd: QBD 1961

The Corporation had, by its engineer, said that its permission for the use of land as a builder’s yard was not in fact and law required. It was mistaken in this view.
Held: What the engineer had said could not create an estoppel preventing the Corporation from exercising its statutory discretion to forbid the land being used as a builder’s yard. A local or planning authority cannot by contract fetter in an anticipatory way its future discretion to approve or reject applications after proper consideration in accordance with the prescribed procedure. An officer of a Planning Authority cannot estop that Planning Authority from subsequently contending that the particular development is not permitted

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

[1962] 1 QB 416, [1961] 2 All ER 46

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLever (Finance) Ltd v City of Westminster CA 22-Jul-1970
The appellant developers had obtained detailed planning approval for fourteen houses, but after adjustments for a building line, moving several properties distances of several feet toward other properties, further plans were submitted without . .
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.

Planning, Estoppel

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.443218

Inwards v Baker: CA 13 Jan 1965

An indulgent father had encouraged his son to build a bungalow on his, the father’s, land. The son had done so in the expectation, encouraged by the father, that he would be permitted to remain in occupation.
Held: The court formulated the principle of equitable estoppel on the footing that where a person has expended money on the land of another with the expectation, induced or encouraged by the owner of the land, that he would be allowed to remain in occupation, an equity is created such that the court would protect his occupation of the land; and that the court has power to determine in what way the equity so arising would be satisfied. The court therefore refused the plaintiff an order for possession of the bungalow which his son had built on the land, and held that the son was entitled to stay there as long as he wanted. It need not be not fatal to a claim under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel that the property in which the right is claimed has not been precisely identified.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Danckwerts and Salmon LJJ

Citations:

[1965] QB 29, [1965] 2 WLR 212, [1965] 1 All ER 446, [1965] EWCA Civ 465

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

FollowedRamsden v Dyson HL 11-May-1866
The Vice-Chancellor had held that two tenants of Sir John Ramsden, the owner of a large estate near Huddersfield, were entitled to long leases of plots on the estate. They ostensibly held the plots as tenants at will only, but they had spent their . .

Cited by:

CitedSledmore v Dalby CA 8-Feb-1996
The plaintiff sought possession of a house. She had owned it with her late husband. The defendant lived in and had done much work on the house, but the deceased left it all to the plaintiff and the defendant’s wife who had since also died. She . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedDodsworth v Dodsworth and Another CA 3-Jul-1973
. .
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.

Equity, Estoppel

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.183816

Downderry Construction Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Another: Admn 11 Jan 2002

The applicant had an existing planning permission. They sought and received confirmation from the local authority that the permission remained in effect. They then sought a certificate of lawful use. The letter confirming the permission had been issued in error, but the claimant asserted that the council were estopped from refusing the certificate. The inspector said the developer knew enough not to have relied upon the letter.
Held: A public authority may be subject to an estoppel even in exercising its statutory duties in exceptional circumstances. Here the representation made by the council was clear and unambiguous, and the applicant believed it and relied upon it to his detriment. It was not justified to say he should have known the falsity of the representation. There is no requirement as to the reasonableness of the claimant relying upon the representation. The inspector erred in law and his decision was quashed.

Judges:

Richards J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 191 192

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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.

Planning, Administrative, Estoppel

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.168018

McGuane v Welch: CA 11 Jul 2008

Appeal from a decision applying the doctrines of proprietary estoppel and constructive trust to dealings between the parties about a long lease of residential property acquired by a council tenant in the exercise of his statutory right to buy.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 785

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Estoppel, Trusts, Land

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.270704

Universal Permanent Building Society v Cooke: CA 1951

The mortgagor agreed to buy a shop with living accommodation above. She let the flat to her sister before completion, and by the date of the mortgage, the sister was in possession. After default, the lender sought possession under the mortgage, but was only granted possession subject to the tenancy. The mortgage was granted the day after the completion of the purchase.
Held: With no evidence to the contrary, there was an interval between the conveyance and the mortgage during which time the tenant’s tenancy by estoppel became a tenancy at law with priority over the mortgage. The estoppel was fed by the acquisition of the legal estate.

Judges:

Jenkins LJ, Lord Evershed MR

Citations:

[1952] Ch 95, [1951] 2 All ER 893, [1951] 2 TLR 962

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

DistinguishedCoventry Permanent Economic Building Society v Jones ChD 1951
The contracting purchaser of a property agreed, prior to completion, to let the ground floor of the property to two tenants. She subsequently borrowed a sum of money from the plaintiffs to enable her to complete the purchase. On completion, she . .

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.

Land, Estoppel, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.259705

Outram v Morewood: 1803

Where a fact or title had been put at issue between the parties in an action for trespass, the ensuing verdict creates an estoppel preventing the same parties relitigating that fact or title. Of a finding of trespass, in relation to some coal lying close under the land of the plaintiff, the court said: ‘A finding upon title in trespass not only operates as a bar to the future recovery of damages for a trespass founded on the same injury, but also operates by way of estoppel to any action for an injury through the same supposed right of possession.’

Judges:

Lord Ellenborough

Citations:

(1803) 3 East 346, [1803] 102 ER 630, [1803] EngR 498

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHamilton v Weston CA 14-Jul-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.231143

Kingston’s (Duchess) Case: 1776

The judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is as a plea, a bar, or as evidence, conclusive between the same parties coming incidentaly in question in another court for a different purpose. The principle of litigation privilege is restricted to legal advice.

Citations:

(1776) 1 East PC 468, (1776) 20 ST 336

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 . .
CitedThree Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6) HL 11-Nov-2004
The Bank anticipated criticism in an ad hoc enquiry which was called to investigate its handling of a matter involving the claimant. The claimant sought disclosure of the documents created when the solicitors advised employees of the Bank in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Ecclesiastical, Estoppel, Legal Professions

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.188235

Gregory v Mighell: 1811

Citations:

(1811) 18 Ves 328

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedYaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.193608

Lyon v Reed: 1844

The court examined the principle of the surrender of a lease by operation of law: ‘. . . all the old cases will be found to depend on the principle to which we have adverted, namely, an act done by or to the owner of a particular estate, the validity of which he is estopped from disputing, and which could not have been done if the particular estate continued to exist. The law there says, that the act itself amounts to a surrender. In such case it will be observed there can be no question of intention. The surrender is not the result of intention. It takes place independently, and even in spite of intention. Thus, in the cases which we have adverted to of a lessee taking a second lease from the lessor, or a tenant for life accepting a feoffment from the party in remainder, or a lessee accepting a rent-charge from his lessor, it would not at all alter the case to show that there was no intention to surrender the particular estate, or even that there was an express intention to keep it unsurrendered. In all these cases the surrender would be the act of the law, and would prevail in spite of the intention of the parties.’
Baron Parke: ‘In order to ascertain how far … cases can be relied on as authorities, we must consider what is meant by a surrender by operation of law. This term is applied to cases where the owner of a particular estate has been a party to some act, the validity of which he is by law afterwards estopped from disputing, and which would not be valid if his particular estate had continued to exist. There the law treats the doing of such act as amounting to a surrender. Thus, if a lessee for years accept a new lease for his lessor, he is estopped from saying that his lessor had not power to make the new lease; and, as the lessor could not do this until the prior lease had been surrendered, the law says that the acceptance of such new lease is of itself a surrender…’ and ‘If we apply these principles to the case now before us, it will be seen that they do not at all warrant the conclusion, that there was a surrender of the lease of the 7th of April, 1812, by act and operation of law. Even adopting, as we do, the argument of the plaintiff, that the delivery up by Ord and Planta of the lease in question affords cogent evidence of their having consented to the making of the new lease, still there is no estoppel in such a case. It is an act which, like any other ordinary act in pais, is capable of being explained, and its effect must therefore depend, not on any legal consequence necessarily attaching on and arising out of the act itself, but on the intention of the parties.’ and ‘The acts in pais which bind parties by way of estoppel are but few, and are pointed out by Lord Coke, Co Litt, 352a. They are all acts which anciently really were, and in contemplation of law have always continued to be, acts of notoriety, not less formal and solemn than the execution of a deed, such as livery, entry, acceptance of an estate, and the like. Whether a party had or had not concurred in an act of this sort, was deemed a matter which there could be no difficulty in ascertaining, and then the legal consequences followed. But in what uncertainty and peril will titles be placed, if they are liable to be affected by such accidents as those alluded to by Mr Justice Bayley.’

Judges:

Baron Parke

Citations:

(1844) 13 MandW 285, [1843-60] All ER Rep 178

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAllen and Another v Rochdale Borough Council CA 23-Mar-1999
Land was sold. It had been used as playing fields. The freehold and leasehold interests in the land were held by the respondent, and the claimants asserted it was held as bare trustees for them as charitable trustees for the school foundation. The . .
CitedEaling Family Housing Association Ltd v McKenzie CA 10-Oct-2003
The defendant and his wife separated when she left the flat they shared. She accepted a new tenancy of other premises. The landlord claimed possession of the flat, saying that the tenancy had ended.
Held: There was no express surrender within . .
CitedMattey Securities Limited v Ervin, Sutton, Mitchell CA 3-Apr-1998
After the insolvency of an assignee of a lease, the landlord talked with possible new tenants, and the original lessee now said that the landlord had impliedly accepted a surrender of the original lease, thus releasing him from continuing liability. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.187386

Crown Estates Commissioners v Dorset County Council: 1990

Res judicata (more properly estoppel per rem judicatam) is a form of estoppel which gives effect to the policy of the law that the parties to a judicial decision should not afterwards be allowed to re-litigate the same question, even though the decision may be wrong. If it is wrong, it must be challenged by appeal or not at all. As between themselves, the parties are bound by the decision, and may neither re-litigate the same cause of action nor re-open any issue which was an essential part of the decision. The doctrine comes into its own only when the decision is wrong; if it is right, it merely serves to save time and costs.

Judges:

Millett

Citations:

[1990] Ch 297

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMulkerrins v Pricewaterhouse Coopers HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages from her former accountants for failing to protect her from bankruptcy. The receiver had unnecessarily caused great difficulties in making their claim that such an action vested in them. The defendants had subsequently, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Estoppel

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.185411

Norwegian American Cruises A/S (formerly Norwegian American Lines A/S) v Paul Munday Ltd (The “Vistafjord”): 1988

A party may be precluded by an estoppel by convention from raising a contention contrary to a common assumption of fact or law (which could include the validity of a notice) upon which they have acted.

Citations:

[1988] 2 Lloyds Rep 343

Jurisdiction:

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 . .

Cited by:

CitedMannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.185088

Taylor v Neeham: 1810

‘It would be a very odd in the law of any country, if A could take by any form of conveyance, a greater or better right than he had who conveys it to him; it would be contrary to all principle. But it does not rest merely on the general principle; if you look into all the books upon estoppel, you find it laid down, that parties and privies are not estopped, and he who takes an estate under a deed, is privy in estate, and therefore never can be in a better situation than he from whom he takes it.’

Judges:

Mansfield CJ

Citations:

[1810] 2 Taunt 278

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Estoppel

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.183682

In re Basham dec’d; Basham v Basham: 1986

The claimant and her husband had helped her mother and her stepfather throughout the claimant’s adult life. She received no remuneration but understood that she would inherit her stepfather’s property when he died. After her mother’s death and until her stepfather’s death she and her husband lived near the cottage to which her stepfather had moved (but never lived in the cottage). The claimant was told by her stepfather that ‘she would lose nothing’ by her help and (a few days before his death) that she was to have the cottage. The deputy judge held that she was entitled, by proprietary estoppel, to the whole of the estate of her stepfather (who died intestate). He rejected the submission that the principle could not extend beyond cases where the claimant already had enjoyment of an identified item of property.
Edward Nugee QC said: ‘In the present case it is in my judgment clearly established by the evidence, first, that the plaintiff had a belief at all material times that she was going to receive both Rosslyn and the remainder of the deceased’s property on his death, and secondly, that this belief was encouraged by the deceased . . I am satisfied that the deceased encouraged the plaintiff in the belief that all the property he possessed at the date of his death would pass to her.’ and
‘The plaintiff relies on proprietary estoppel, the principle of which, in its broadest form, may be stated as follows: where one person, A, has acted to his detriment on the faith of a belief, which was known to and encouraged by another person, B, that he either has or is going to be given a right in or over B’s property, B cannot insist on his strict legal rights if to do so would be inconsistent with A’s belief.’ and ‘But in my judgment, at all events where the belief is that A is going to be given a right in the future, it is properly to be regarded as giving rise to a species of constructive trust, which is the concept employed by a court of equity to prevent a person from relying on his legal rights where it would be unconscionable for him to do so.’

Judges:

Edward Nugee QC

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 1498, [1987] 1 All ER 405

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .

Cited by:

CitedKeelwalk Properties Ltd v Betty Waller and Another CA 30-Jul-2002
The claimant appealed refusal of its claim for possession against the respondents, occupiers of single-storey wooden bungalows on its land. The leases had expired. The defendants said the structures were their own, and not subject to the lease, and . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedGrundy v Ottey CA 31-Jul-2003
The deceased left his estate within a discretionary trust. The claimant sought to assert an interest in it, claiming an estoppel and, under the 1975 Act, as his partner. They had lived together for four years. She had been dependent upon him . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Estoppel

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.182388

EH Lewis and Son Ltd v Morelli: 1948

Where somebody with no legal estate purports to grant a tenancy, he can only create a tenancy by estoppel which continues until the true land-owner asserts his interest. Such a tenancy can be created even if only by word of mouth.

Citations:

[1948] 2 All ER 1021

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.259704

Fidelitas Shipping Co Ltd v V/O Exportchleb: CA 1965

Where there is an award that is on its face an interim award, then the arbitrator is only functus officio with respect to the issues dealt with in that interim award and retains the authority to deal with the remaining matters. Issue estoppel applies to arbitration proceedings, including interim awards, as it does to normal civil litigation.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Within one issue, there may be several points available which go to aid one party or the other in his efforts to secure a determination of the issue in his favour. The rule then is that each party must use reasonable diligence to bring forward every point which he thinks would help him. If he omits to raise any particular point, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident (which would or might have decided the issue in his favour) he may find himself shut out from raising that point again, at any rate in any case where the self-same issue arises in the same or subsequent proceedings. But this again is not an inflexible rule. It can be departed from in special circumstances.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Diplock LJ

Citations:

[1966] 1 QB 630, [1965] 2 WLR 1059, [1965] 2 All ER 4, [1961] 1 Lloyds Rep 223

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRysaffe Trustee Company (CI) Ltd and Another v Ataghan Ltd and others ChD 8-Aug-2006
Complex family trusts had been created over many years. Various documents were now disputed, and particularly the extent of land demised by a lease, and whether a surender of a lease had occurred. Landslides had disturbed the boundaries of the land. . .
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 . .
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, Arbitration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.245079

Freeman And Another, Assignees of William Broadbent v Cooke: 1 Jul 1848

Where a party creates a belief in another’s mind, and causes the other to act upon that belief, he will not in subsequent court proceedings be heard to deny that belief: ‘a party who negigently of culpably stands by and allows another to contract on the faith of a fact which he can contradict, cannot afterwards dispoute that fact in an action against the party who he has himself assisted in deceiving.’

Citations:

(1848) 2 Exch 554, 6 Dow and L 187, [1843-60] All ER Rep 185, [1848] EngR 687, (1848) 154 ER 652

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedSmith v Hughes QBD 6-Jun-1871
Blackburn J said: ‘I apprehend that if one of the parties intends to make a contract on one set of terms, and the other intends to make a contract on another set of terms, or, as it is sometimes expressed, if the parties are not ad idem, there is no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.188458

Michaels v Harley House (Marylebone) Limited: CA 6 Nov 1998

Appeal from dismissal of claim for relief from forfeiture

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1714, [1999] 1 All ER 356, [1999] BCC 967, [1999] BCC 967, [1999] L and TR 374, [1998] EG 159, [1999] 3 WLR 229, [2000] Ch 104, [1999] 1 BCLC 670, (1999) 31 HLR 990, [1998] EGCS 159

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRayner v Preston CA 8-Apr-1881
The vendors agreed to sell a house which they had insured against fire risk. The house was damaged by fire after contract but before completion, and the issue was whether the purchaser was entitled to the benefit of the insurance.
Held: . .
CitedClarke v Ramuz CA 9-Jul-1891
The vendor was accused of failing to prevent a trespasser removing soil from land between exchange and completion.
Where a vendor under a contract for sale of land keeps possession until completion and payment of the purchase-money, he is in . .
CitedHasham v Zenab PC 19-Jan-1960
(Eastern Africa – Kenya) An accrued right of action for breach of contract is not a necessary precondition to obtaining specific performance. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.145193

Forrester v The Secretary Of State For The Environment And South Buckinghamshire District Council: Admn 14 Mar 1997

The applicant appealed dismissal of his appeal against a planning enforcement notice issued by the respondent. He said the change had taken place more than ten years before the notice and so was immune to enforcement proceedings. An earlier decision appeared to establish use at that time.
Held: An issue estoppel was claimed for which there are four requirements: a formal decision on the issue, an issue between the parties to the decision, it must have been a final decision, and of the sort in which an issue estoppel can arise. Those conditions were met. The inspector had failed to recognise that his findings were limited by an issue estoppel, and the matter must be remitted..

Judges:

His Honour Judge Rich

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 271, [1997] EWHC Admin 271

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPorter and Another v Secretary of State for Transport CA 3-Jun-1996
No issue estoppel on land value arose from a previous Secretary’s finding on Lands Tribunal. . .
CitedWychavon District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another CA 24-Oct-1994
The Secretary of State was entitled to a costs order whether or not matter of principle had arisen in the course of a planning appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Estoppel

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.137216

Greasley v Cooke: 1980

For a proprietary estoppel to arise the plaintiff must have incurred expenditure or otherwise have prejudiced himself or acted to his detriment. However, once it has been established that promises were made, and that there has been conduct by the plaintiff of such a nature that inducement may be inferred then the burden of proof shifts to the defendants to establish that he did not rely on the promises

Citations:

[1980] 1 WLR 1306, [1980] 3 All ER 710

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
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 . .
CitedSainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Olympia Homes Limited, Hughes etc ChD 17-Jun-2005
The claimant sought rectification of the land register. In a development deal, an option agreement had not been registered, and the land sold on. The land was required to allow the building of a roundabout necessary for the intended store. An . .
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.

Estoppel

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.193797

SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd: ComC 13 Dec 2018

SAS sought to enforce its North Carolina judgment which was contrary to decisions already made by the UK and European Courts.
Held: Cockerill J held that the terms of the contract which purported to prohibit WPL’s conduct constituted a fundamental building block for the fraud claim and that without it that claim – as it was formulated in the North Carolina proceedings – could not have been run. Accordingly, the enforcement claim failed on four grounds:
(1) First, the issue estoppel which would have defeated the breach of contract claim equally defeated the fraud claim, and hence the UDTPA claim which in turn was based on the fraud claim. That was because the fraud claim depended on the licence terms which the English court had held to be null and void.
(2) Second, even if enforcement of the North Carolina judgment were not barred by issue estoppel, it would have been barred as an abuse of process, applying Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, because the claims in that action could and should have been brought as part of the original claim in England.
(3) Third, enforcement would be contrary to the important public policy, embodied in the Software Directive, of preventing the monopolisation of ideas and promoting competition and consumer welfare.
(4) Fourth, following the decision of Lord Hodge in the Scottish case of Service Temps Inc v MacLeod [2013] CSOH 162, [2014] SLT 375, enforcement of the UDTPA element of the judgment, including the compensatory damages awarded in respect of that claim, was barred by section 5 of the PTIA.

Judges:

Cockerill J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 3452 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoSAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ChD 23-Jul-2010
The court considered the impact of the distinction drawn by Article 9(2) of TRIPS and Article 2 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty between ‘expressions’ and ‘ideas, procedures, methods of operation and mathematical concepts as such’ on domestic copyright . .
See AlsoSAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ChD 22-Nov-2010
The parties sought to agree the terms of a reference to the European Court of Justice. . .
See AlsoSAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ECJ 29-Nov-2011
ECJ Opinion – Intellectual property – Directive 91/250/EEC – Directive 2001/29/EC – Legal protection of computer programs – Creation of various programs including the functionalities of another computer program . .
See AlsoSAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ECJ 2-May-2012
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Intellectual property – Directive 91/250/EEC – Legal protection of computer programs – Articles 1(2) and 5(3) – Scope of protection – Creation directly or via another process – Computer . .
See AlsoSAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ChD 25-Jan-2013
The parties disputed the extent to which elements of the claimant’s software package could be used by the defendants. SAS had written software including its own computer language to create a data processing environment. The defendants had wanted to . .
CitedSAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd CA 21-Nov-2013
The court was asked as to the extent to which the developer of a computer program may lawfully replicate the functions of an existing computer program; and the materials that he may lawfully use for that purpose. SAS had produced a computer software . .

Cited by:

See AlsoSAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd (2495) ComC 25-Sep-2019
Post judgment orders . .
See AlsoSAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd (Injunction) ComC 25-Sep-2019
Continuation of anti-suit injunction – refused . .
See AlsoSAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd CA 12-May-2020
Appeal from refusal of continuance of anti-suit injunction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Estoppel

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.631433

Danyluk v Ainsworth Technologies Inc: 12 Jul 2001

Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Administrative law – Issue estoppel – Employee filing complaint against employer under Employment Standards Act seeking unpaid wages and commissions – Employee subsequently commencing court action against employer for wrongful dismissal and unpaid wages and commissions – Employment standards officer dismissing employee’s complaint – Employer arguing that employee’s claim for unpaid wages and commissions before court barred by issue estoppel – Whether officer’s failure to observe procedural fairness in deciding employee’s complaint preventing application of issue estoppel – Whether preconditions to application of issue estoppel satisfied – If so, whether this Court should exercise its discretion and refuse to apply issue estoppel.
Binney J said: ‘a decision which is made without jurisdiction from the outset cannot form the basis of an estoppel’

Judges:

Binney J

Citations:

[2001] 2 SCR 460, 2001 SCC 44

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

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

Commonwealth, Estoppel

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.430684

Steria Ltd and others v Hutchison and others: CA 24 Nov 2006

Neuberger LJ observed that estoppels are relied on because of difficulties in establishing a contract; and, since unconscionability is the single factor that must be established for an estoppel and views on unconscionability may vary, it is necessary to have specific but flexible guiding principles; ‘When it comes to estoppels by representation or promissory estoppel, it seems to me very unlikely that a claimant would be able to satisfy the test of unconscionability unless he could also satisfy the three classic requirements. They are (a) a clear representation or promise made by the defendant upon which it is reasonably foreseeable that the claimant will act, (b) an act on the part of the claimant which was reasonably taken in reliance upon the representation or promise, and (c) after the act has been taken, the claimant being able to show that he will suffer detriment if the defendant is not held to the representation or promise. Even this formulation is relatively broad brush, and it should be emphasised that there are many qualifications or refinements which can be made to it.
The requirement for these three features, at least in relation to estoppel by representation, was very clearly put by the Privy Council in Tai Hing Cotton Mill Lt v. Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd [1986] AC 80, 110, in the following terms: ‘the essence of estoppels is a representation (express or implied) intended to induce the person to whom it is made to adopt a course of conduct which results in detriment or loss.’
I can see no reason, in theory or practice, why this should not be equally true of promissory estoppel . .’

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Jacob LJ, Neuberger J

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1551, [2007] ICR 445

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal FromSteria Ltd and others v Hutchison and others ChD 21-Dec-2005
. .

Cited by:

CitedParties Named In Schedule A v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd and Another QBD 28-May-2010
The defendant merchant banks resisted two group claims for annual bonuses for 2008 made by the employee claimants. They now sought summary judgment against the claims. The employer had declared a guaranteed minimum bonus pool available to make the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Contract

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.246376

Powell and Another v Benney: CA 5 Dec 2007

The claimants asserted an interest under a constructive trust in land held by the defendant.
Held: The judge had found acts of detriment suffered by the claimants. Though elements of the judgment might be criticised, the appeal failed.

Judges:

Lloyd LJ, Richards LJ, Sir Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1283

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedYaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
CitedJennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed CA 22-Feb-2002
The claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel against the respondents. He had worked for the deceased over many years, for little payment, and doing more and more for her. Though he still worked full time at first, he came to spend nights at the . .
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 . .
CitedStack v Dowden HL 25-Apr-2007
The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Estoppel

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.261802

Woodland-Ferrari v UCL Group Retirement Benefits Scheme: ChD 5 Jul 2002

The bankrupt had received his discharge from the bankruptcy and the debts associated. After the discharge he received a statutory demand from the trustees of a pension fund claiming sums from him alleging his dishonest breach of trust. He replied by saying that he had been discharged.
Held: To constitute a ‘fraudulent breach of trust’ under the Act, the behaviour had to have been deliberate and dishonest. An alternative view would have been against the spirit behind the 1986 legislation. The Financial Services Ombudsman had made a finding that he had been in ‘wilful default’ but that was not so equivalent a finding as to allow an estoppel as to whether he had acted fraudulently. The debt was in dispute, and the statutory demand was set aside.

Judges:

Mr Justice Ferris

Citations:

Times 17-Jul-2002

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 281(1) 281(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insolvency, Estoppel

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.174374

Kirin Amgen Inc v Boehringer Mannheim GmbH: 1997

Citations:

[1997] FSR 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Estoppel, International

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.330947

Bell and others v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd: CA 11 Dec 1997

The court was asked: ‘whether a company which has granted a lease of business premises in circumstances which would ordinarily mean that the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (‘the Act’) applied can invoke s. 24 A of that Act even though it did not have title to the premises the subject of the lease at the time of the demise. Put rather more widely, the question is whether a tenant by estoppel of business premises can invoke the protection of the Act.’
Mummery LJ said: ‘the juristic basis and the legal effect of the estoppel doctrine were authoritatively expounded in the Court of Exchequer by Martin B in Cuthbertson v Irving . . in terms applicable to this case . . The result is also consistent with the legal effect of the satellite doctrine of ‘feeding the estoppel’ . . which applies when an interest in the land is acquired by the person deficient in title at the time of the grant from which the estoppel arose: ‘so that, as Hale put it, ‘by purchase of the land, that is turned into a lease in interest, which before was purely an estoppel”: see Holdsworth’s History of English Law, vol VII, p 246.’

Judges:

Beldam, Hutchison, Mummery LJJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2962, [1997] EG 174, [1998] 1 EGLR 69, [1998] 17 EG 144, [1998] L and TR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 24A

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.

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.143361

Orgee v Orgee: CA 5 Nov 1997

The defendant had claimed an agricultural tenancy under a proprietary estoppel. His claim succeeded at first instance. The judge found it had been clearly understood that he would continue to farm the land on the basis of an agricultural tenancy, as agreed in principle, and that he bought stock and farm implements on that basis. However, no terms were agreed and no rent was agreed either. The claimant appealed.
Held: Crabb v. Arun DC was described as the ‘leading modern authority’. The appellant’s upheld submission was: ‘since the measure of expectation or belief is the maximum extent of the equity, it is incumbent on Mr William, in order to satisfy the test, not only to establish an expectation or belief that he would be granted a full agricultural tenancy, but also to show that such expectation of belief was of sufficiently concrete character to enable the court to give effect to it when fixing the rent and the rent review regime, and making provision for dilapidations, for the repairing covenant, and for other crucial terms.’ ‘ . . even if one were to assume that the first of the judge’s two findings stood intact, and that Mr William did have a firm expectation based on a clear understanding in 1989 that Mr William would continue to farm the land on the basis of an agricultural tenancy, one asks inevitably, an expectation of such a tenancy on what terms? In seeking to answer that question I think that unfortunately Mr William runs into insuperable difficulties, since, as the judge recognised in the same passage in the first part of his judgment, the matter was not discussed in any detail, whereas to my mind the detail was all important, yet so many potentially insoluble problems were left up in the air.’

Judges:

Hirst, Swinton Thomas and Mantell LJJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2650

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedCrabb v Arun District Council CA 23-Jul-1975
The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .

Cited 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

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.143049

Bradbury and Others v Taylor and Another: CA 4 Oct 2012

The respondents had gone to share the father’s house. On his death they claimed possession under an estoppel. The appellant executors now appealed against refusal of possession, challenging the judge’s interpretation of the evidence.

Judges:

Lloyd, Richards, Elias LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1208

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Estoppel

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464651

Godden v Merthyr Tydfil Housing Association: CA 15 Jan 1997

The Plaintiff was a building contractor; the Defendant a housing association engaged in developing suitable sites for residential accommodation for letting to tenants. Before the contract the parties had successfully completed what was been called the Trelewis Development which followed, it is said, an oral arrangement. The plaintiff appealed a striking out of his claim on the basis that there was no enforceable contract under the 1989 Act.
Held: The argument propounded would vitiate the 1989 Act. An estoppel should not be allowed to prevent the defendants arguing that no contract existed. In this case it would be inappropriate to allow an amendment to the pleadings in mid-appeal. Where all the obligations between the parties were integral to each other, part and parcel of a single scheme, section 2 applied to the transaction.
Discussing the Tootal Clothing case, Simon Brown LJ said: ‘However, nothing in that case – not even in Scott LJ’s judgment, which went further than those of the other members of the Court and further indeed than was necessary to the decision- to my mind support the Appellant’s claim to enforce any aspect of the present transaction, given (a) that no part of it whatsoever was in writing, and (b) central to the entire scheme was the ultimate transference of land from the Plaintiff to the Defendants.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 780, (1997) 74 P and CR D1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedTootal Clothing Ltd v Guinea Properties Ltd CA 1992
By a single commercial transaction the parties agreed to the grant of a lease, on terms that Tootal (the intending lessee), would carry out shop-fitting works, have the benefit of a three months rent-free period during the which the works were to be . .
CitedDaulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd 1978
In a contract the Defendants promised certain properties to whoever first arrived with the requisite draft contract and bankers drafts. The Plaintiffs did.
Held: They failed in their claim. It involved a unilateral contract and the Defendants’ . .
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 . .

Cited by:

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 . .
CitedYaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
CitedBankers Trust Company v Namdar and Namdar CA 14-Feb-1997
The bank sought repayment of its loan and possession of the defendants’ property. The second defendant said that the charge had only her forged signature.
Held: Non-compliance with section 2 of the 1989 Act does not make a bargain illegal, and . .
CitedKilcarne Holdings Ltd v Targetfollow (Birmingham) Ltd, Targetfollow Group Ltd ChD 9-Nov-2004
The defendant entered into an agreement for lease, incurring substantial obligations. When it could not meet them it sought assistance from the claimant, who now claimed to have an interest in a joint venture. The draft documentation originally . .
CitedNorth Eastern Properties Ltd v Coleman and Another CA 19-Mar-2010
The appellants challenged specific performance orders obliging them to complete the purchase of apartments, saying that the contracts had not complied with the 1989 Act, and that their repudiation of the contracts had been accepted. The contracts . .
CitedIesini and Others v Westrip Holdings Ltd and Others ChD 16-Oct-2009
The claimants were shareholders in Westrip, accusing the Defendant directors of deliberately engaging in a course of conduct which has led to Westrip losing ownership and control of a very valuable mining licence and which, but for their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141176

Pridean Limited v Forest Taverns Limited; Hipwell and Marshall: CA 28 Nov 1996

The claimant owned a public house. It set out with the defendant to to acquire the premises or to take a lease of them. The defendant went into occupation, and carried out works. Negotiations continued, but broke down over the form of protection to be given to the claimant’s rights as a minority shareholder in the joint venture company. When the claimant demanded possession, the defendant raised the defence of proprietary estoppel.
Held: ‘Mr Fetherstonhaugh did not dispute that in appropriate circumstances proprietary estoppel could arise. He submitted that, on the evidence and the findings of fact made by the judge, it did not arise in this case. I believe he is right. It is accepted that the appellants expended money and time on the premises. Thus the pertinent question to ask is – what was the expectation that the appellants were allowed or encouraged by the respondent to assume? The appellants’ answer to that question was an expectation that they would be able to occupy and trade from the premises. The Respondent says that it was an expectation that the negotiations would lead to the joint venture company occupying and trading from the premises or it would be purchased if the parties could agree terms. That in fact was the conclusion of the judge. He held that the respondents did not lead the appellants to believe that they would be granted a lease. They did however allow the appellants to expend money and time in the expectation that agreement would soon be reached on the precise terms of the joint venture or after November the premises would be purchased on terms to be agreed. There was no expectation that the appellants could remain if the negotiations for a joint venture failed.
I believe you can test that conclusion by asking – what were the terms upon which the appellants believed that they were entitled to remain and manage the premises? There was no agreement. That was decided by the judge who rejected the appellants’ evidence. The answer, I believe must be ‘terms to be agreed’. Those terms were never agreed.
The case for proprietary estoppel failed when the judge rejected the appellants’ case that there was an agreement between the parties. If there was no agreement then the only expectation that could arise was an expectation that negotiations would be concluded as anticipated. That being so, there could not have been an expectation, which arose due to any action or inaction of the respondent, that the appellants could remain if the negotiations were not satisfactorily concluded.’

Judges:

Aldous LJ, Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 1060, (1996) 75 P and CR 447

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 . .
CitedKilcarne Holdings Ltd v Targetfollow (Birmingham) Ltd, Targetfollow Group Ltd ChD 9-Nov-2004
The defendant entered into an agreement for lease, incurring substantial obligations. When it could not meet them it sought assistance from the claimant, who now claimed to have an interest in a joint venture. The draft documentation originally . .
MentionedCobbe 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 . .
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

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140927

Special 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 an abuse of process for L’Oreal to raise by way of defence or counterclaim, for a declaration of invalidity or for relief on the basis of passing off, matters which it raised in the opposition proceedings and which were found against it. In so doing, it wished to take advantage of opportunities expressly afforded by the Act, and it did not seek to do so in a manner which amounted to an abuse of the process. Opposition proceedings were best not conducted on a basis which would prevent later challenges before a court.

Judges:

Chadwick, Lloyd, leveson LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1, Times 24-Jan-2007, [2007] ETMR 51, [2007] Bus LR 759, [2007] RPC 15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedProcter and Gamble Co v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (‘Baby-Dry’) ECJ 20-Sep-2001
ECJ Appeal – Admissibility – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Absolute ground for refusal to register – Distinctive character – Marks consisting exclusively of descriptive signs or indications – . .
CitedBessant and others v South Cone Incorporated; in re REEF Trade Mark CA 28-May-2002
The Reef pop group applied to register ‘REEF’ for Classes 25 and 26 – e.g. T-shirts, badges, etc. South Cone opposed them as registered proprietors of ‘Reef Brazil’ for the footwear which also was included in Class 25. South’s reputation was . .
CitedThrasyvoulou v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1990
A building owner appealed against enforcement notices which alleged that there had been a material change of use of his buildings in 1982. This notice was issued by a planning authority. As a result of the appeal an inspector determined that the . .
Appeal fromSpecial Effects Ltd v L’Oreal Sa and others ChD 17-Mar-2006
The defendant had previously opposed the registration of the claimant’s trade mark before the Comptroller General, but failed. The claimant now in infringement procedings sought the strike out of the defendant’s challenge to its validity.
CitedHormel Foods Corporation v Antilles Landscape Investments NV ChD 24-Jan-2005
The claimant had alread challenged the validity of the defendant’s registered trade mark, but sought to do so now on grounds which could have been advanced in the earlier case. The claimant owned the trade mark ‘SPAM’ for canned meats, and the . .
See Also‘Special Effects’: Application No 2237923 TMR 22-Aug-2002
cw Inter Partes Decisions – Trade Marks – Opposition . .
CitedBuehler Ag v Chronos Richardson Ltd CA 20-Mar-1998
The rejection of an opposition claim to a European Patent by the European Patents Office, did not create an estoppel for an English Court looking at a similar issue. . .
CitedArnold 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 . .
CitedRe Deeley’s Patent 1895
A revocation of a patent for which the Attorney General’s fiat has been obtained is an action taken on behalf of the public at large. . .
CitedShoe Machinery Company v Cutlan 1896
The patentee had succeeded at trial in obtaining a declaration of validity and a determination of infringement, and, in subsequent proceedings, the infringer sought to challenge the validity of the patent by raising a fresh argument based on . .
CitedPoulton v Adjustable Cover and Boiler Block Co CA 1908
The Plaintiff patent holder had obtained judgment, an injunction and damages against the Defendant for patent infringement despite a defence of invalidity based on prior art. The Defendant then acquired information about other instances of prior art . .
CitedThoday v Thoday CA 1964
The court discussed the difference between issue estoppel, and action estoppel: ‘The particular type of estoppel relied upon by the husband is estoppel per rem judicatam. This is a generic term which in modern law includes two species. The first . .
CitedCoflexip S A and Another v Stolt Offshore Ms Ltd and others CA 27-Feb-2004
Proceedings had been brought by a third party in which the patent had been revoked. The Defendant in the first proceedings now sought release from an enquiry as to damages after being found, before the revocation, to have infringed the patent.
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 . .
CitedShoe Machinery Company v Cutlan (No 2) 1896
Prior litigation had been an infringement action in which the Defendants denied both validity and infringement, and succeeded on infringement but failed on validity and were ordered to pay costs of the validity issue. By the time of the second . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Estoppel

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.247684

Gale v Superdrug Stores Plc: CA 25 Apr 1996

The right to resile from an admission made in pleadings is lost only if there can be found proof of prejudice to the other party. It is a matter for the judge’s discretion.
The court set out the principles on which it should act when it is asked to give leave to amend.

Citations:

Gazette 22-May-1996, Times 02-May-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1300, [1996] 1 WLR 1089, [1996] 3 All ER 46, [1996] PIQR P330

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAl-Sabah v Ali and Others ChD 22-Jan-1999
The claimant alleged the fraudulent transfer of properties by use of a forged power of attorney.
Held: The power was fraudulent. Solicitors had acted under the instructions of the agent. The court referred to the Law Society’s practice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.80734

Ram and Another v Chauhan and Another: Misc 19 Jul 2017

Leeds County Court – Challenge to validity of will – witnesses not present – lack of capacity – undue influence

Judges:

Saffmann HHJ

Citations:

[2017] EW Misc 12 (CC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Wills Act 1837 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBanks v Goodfellow QBD 6-Jul-1870
Test for Capacity to Execute Will
The testator suffered from delusions, but not so badly or in such a way as was found to affect his capacity or to influence his testamentary disposition. The judge had given the following direction: ‘The question is whether . . the testator was . .
CitedKey and Another v Key and Others ChD 5-Mar-2010
The will was challenged for want of testamentary capacity. The testator was 89 years old, and the will was made within a week of the death of his wife of 65 years and without the solicitor having taken any proper steps to satisfy himself as to the . .
CitedParker and Another v Felgate and Tilly ChD 7-Jul-1883
Capacity to execute Will once instructions given
A will was challenged on the basis of alleged lack of capacity. The testatrix had capacity when instructing her solicitor, but suffered from Bright’s disease which affected her kidney, and she fell into a coma before it was prepared. She was roused . .
CitedRe Loxston, Abbot v Richardson ChD 4-May-2006
Mr N Strauss QC said: ‘The question is always whether the testator had the necessary capacity at the time the Will was executed, and that may depend upon the efforts made by others to enable her to have in mind all the relevant considerations . .
CitedEdwards v Edwards and others ChD 3-May-2007
Family members challenged the will saying that one son had exercised undue influence over the testatrix.
Held: The beneficiary son had poisoned his mother’s mind against the other family members. The will would be set aside for his undue . .
CitedPerrins v Holland and Others; In re Perrins, deceased CA 21-Jul-2010
The testator had given instructions for his will and received a draft will. The judge had found that he had capacity to make the will when he gave instructions but not when it was executed. The will having been made in accordance with his . .
CitedHawes v Burgess and Another CA 19-Feb-2013
The appellant challenged pronouncement against the validity of wills on the ground of lack of testamentary capacity and want of knowledge and approval.
Mummery LJ said: ‘Although talk of presumptions and their rebuttal is not regarded as . .
CitedSimon v Byford and Others CA 13-Mar-2014
The court was asked whether the testatrix (a) had testamentary capacity and (b) knew and approved the contents of her will when she executed it at or immediately after her 88th birthday party. The judge had answered both those questions in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Estoppel, Undue Influence

Updated: 28 October 2022; Ref: scu.590780

Desert Sun Loan Corporation v Hill: CA 21 Feb 1996

A defence of Issue Estoppel was not available where the issue which was claimed to have been decided had been made under an unclear foreign procedure. It was also essential that the issue in respect of which an estoppel was now asserted had been a finding necessary to the judgment to be relied upon: ‘The principle is that an issue of fact or law which necessarily was concluded in favour of one party in the foreign proceedings cannot be reopened in foreign proceedings between the same parties here.’

Judges:

Evans LJ

Citations:

Gazette 20-Mar-1996, Times 21-Feb-1996, [1996] 2 All ER 847

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

Estoppel, Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.79933

Barber v Staffordshire County Council: CA 29 Jan 1996

A dismissal of a claim without consideration by the tribunal created an issue estoppel. Issue estoppel rules apply equally to Industrial Tribunal decisions as elsewhere. Redundancy claim once withdrawn on one ground could not be revived on another. An order dismissing an Employment Tribunal claim on withdrawal by the Claimant is a judicial decision giving rise to cause of action estoppel.

Citations:

Gazette 14-Feb-1996, Independent 02-Feb-1996, Times 29-Jan-1996, [1996] ICR 379, [1996] IRLR 229

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromStaffordshire County Council v Barber EAT 20-Oct-1995
. .

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 . .
CitedT-Mobile (Uk) Ltd. and Another v Office of Communications CA 12-Dec-2008
The claimant telecoms companies objected to a proposed scheme for future licensing of available spectrum. The scheme anticipated a bias in favour of auctioniung such content. It was not agreed whether any challenge to the decision should be by way . .
CitedSodexho Ltd v Gibbons EAT 14-Jul-2005
EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. . .
DistinguishedSajid v Sussex Muslim Society CA 2-Oct-2001
The defendant appealed against the strike out of parts of its defence. The claimant was employed as the mosque director and imam. He had brought an action in the Industrial Tribunal alleging wrongful dismissal, but notifying the defendants that any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Estoppel

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.78186

Wayling v Jones: CA 2 Aug 1993

The plaintiff and defendant were in a homosexual relationship. The plaintiff worked for the defendant for nominal expenses against his repeated promise to leave the business to him in his will. A will was made to that effect, but the defendant sold the business. The claimant sought damages.
Held: There had been express representations, characterised as promises, made, on at least one occasion, in circumstances in which it was intended to meet a complaint by the plaintiff as to how he was being treated at the time, and therefore intended to be relied on, in the sense of being taken as a sufficient response to the complaint.
Once promises, and reliance upon them, are established, the burden to negative an estoppel falls to the defendant. ‘(1) There must be a sufficient link between the promises relied upon and the conduct which constitutes the detriment (Grant v Edwards) in particular the passage where he equates the principles applicable in cases of constructive trust to those of proprietary estoppel. (2) The promises relied upon do not have to be the sole inducement for the conduct: it is sufficient if they are an inducement. (3) Once it has been established that promises were made, and that there has been conduct by the plaintiff of such a nature that inducement may be inferred then the burden of proof shifts to the defendants to establish that he did not rely on the promises.’

Citations:

Gazette 02-Aug-1993, [1993] 69 P and CR 170

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedEves v Eves CA 28-Apr-1975
The couple were unmarried. The female partner had been led by the male partner to believe, when they set up home together, that the property would belong to them jointly. He had had told her that the only reason why the property was to be acquired . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedGreasley v Cooke 1980
For a proprietary estoppel to arise the plaintiff must have incurred expenditure or otherwise have prejudiced himself or acted to his detriment. However, once it has been established that promises were made, and that there has been conduct by the . .

Cited by:

CitedGrundy v Ottey CA 31-Jul-2003
The deceased left his estate within a discretionary trust. The claimant sought to assert an interest in it, claiming an estoppel and, under the 1975 Act, as his partner. They had lived together for four years. She had been dependent upon him . .
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 . .
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

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.90340

Matharu v Matharu: CA 29 Jun 1994

A proprietary estoppel was established by the carrying out of repairs after the making of a representation, and created a right to a licence to occupy the property for life.

Citations:

Gazette 29-Jun-1994, Independent 18-May-1994, Times 13-May-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Estoppel, Equity

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.83472

Hamilton v Weston: CA 14 Jul 1997

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2095

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedOutram v Morewood 1803
Where a fact or title had been put at issue between the parties in an action for trespass, the ensuing verdict creates an estoppel preventing the same parties relitigating that fact or title. Of a finding of trespass, in relation to some coal lying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.142492

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.396763

Iesini and Others v Westrip Holdings Ltd and Others: ChD 16 Oct 2009

The claimants were shareholders in Westrip, accusing the Defendant directors of deliberately engaging in a course of conduct which has led to Westrip losing ownership and control of a very valuable mining licence and which, but for their intervention, would have led to Westrip losing all or almost all of its remaining assets. They say that the course of conduct that they allege amounts to breaches of duty by the individual defendants.
Held: Section 263 (2) (a) will apply only where the court is satisfied that no director acting in accordance with section 172 would seek to continue the claim. If some directors would, and others would not, seek to continue the claim the case is one for the application of section 263 (3) (b).
Where the claimant brings a derivative claim for the benefit of the company, he will not be disqualified from doing so if there are other benefits which he will derive from the claim. However, in relation to the rescission claim a person may be prevented from bringing a derivative claim if he participated in the wrong of which he complains.

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2526 (Ch), [2011] 1 BCLC 498, [2010] BCC 420

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 2006 261

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedFoss v Harbottle 25-Mar-1843
Company alone may sue for legal wrong against it.
A bill was lodged by two of the proprietors of shares in a company incorporated by Act of Parliament, on their own and the other shareholders’ behalf. They claimed against three bankrupt directors, a proprietor, solicitor and architect charging them . .
CitedWallersteiner v Moir (No 2) CA 1975
The court was asked whether Moir would be entitled to legal aid to bring a derivative action on behalf of a company against its majority shareholder.
Held: A minority shareholder bringing a derivative action on behalf of a company could obtain . .
CitedPrudential Assurance Co Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (No 2) CA 1982
A plaintiff shareholder cannot recover damages merely because the company in which he has an interest has suffered damage. He cannot recover a sum equal to the diminution in the market value of his shares, or equal to the likely diminution in . .
CitedIn Re Little Olympian Eachways Ltd ChD 29-Jul-1994
A Jersey company (Supreme) had brought a petition under the section against the company. An application was made for security for costs against Supreme. It could only be made if Supreme was resident outside the UK. Supreme argued that, despite being . .
CitedLowe v Fahey 1996
Where there has been material misconduct, even in the shape of a single act, the primary remedy is under section 459, not by a shareholder’s derivative action. . .
CitedAirey v Cordell and Others ChD 24-Aug-2006
Application by the claimant for permission to amend his Particulars of Claim to plead a new claim.
Held: Warren J pointed out that there are many cases in which some directors, acting in accordance with section 172, would think it worthwhile . .
CitedFanmailuk.Com Ltd and Another v Cooper and others ChD 11-Jun-2008
Claim for a declaration that the entire share capital was held on trust for the claimant.
Held: Engelhart QC said: ‘on an application under section 261 it would be ‘quite wrong . . to embark on anything like a mini-trial of the action’ . .
CitedFranbar Holdings Ltd v Patel and others ChD 2-Jul-2008
Action alleging breach of shareholders’ agreement.
Held: Directors may have genuine and proper differences of opinion as to the correctness of making a section 172 claim. . .
CitedNurcombe v Nurcombe CA 1985
The court discussed a minority shareholder’s action to enforce the company’s claim as a derivative claim. Browne-Wilkinson LJ said that such an action, where a courts in equity permitted a person interested to bring an action to enforce the . .
CitedBarrett v Duckett CA 15-Aug-1994
A shareholder is to show the court justification for derivative action in company name.
Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘The shareholder will be allowed to sue on behalf of the company if he is bringing the action bona fide for the benefit of the . .
CitedGodden v Merthyr Tydfil Housing Association CA 15-Jan-1997
The Plaintiff was a building contractor; the Defendant a housing association engaged in developing suitable sites for residential accommodation for letting to tenants. Before the contract the parties had successfully completed what was been called . .
CitedShah v Shah CA 10-Apr-2001
The court was asked as to the enforceability of a document under the terms of which the defendants were to make a payment of pounds 1.5 million to the claimant. The document was described as a deed and provided for each defendant to sign in the . .
CitedKonamaneni v Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Limited ChD 20-Dec-2001
The claimants founded their action on the assertion that the defendants had been corrupt in obtaining contracts in India. The defendants argued that the English courts had no jurisdiction. The claimants held various small shareholdings in a company . .
CitedCentral Estates (Belgravia) Ltd v Woolgar CA 1972
A lessee made a claim to acquire the freehold of his house under the 1967 Act. The making of such a claim prevented the landlord from forfeiting the lease unless lessee had not made his claim in good faith.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘To my mind, . .
CitedGoldsmith v Sperrings Ltd CA 1977
Claims for Collateral Purpose treated as abuse
The plaintiff commenced proceedings for damages for libel and an injunction against the publishers, the editors and the main distributors of Private Eye. In addition, he issued writs against a large number of other wholesale and retail distributors . .
CitedSmith v Croft (No 3) ChD 1987
Knox J said: ‘Ultimately the question which has to be answered in order to determine whether the rule in Foss v. Harbottle applies to prevent a minority shareholder seeking relief as plaintiff for the benefit of the company is, ‘Is the plaintiff . .
CitedJaybird Group Ltd v Greenwood 1986
An indemnity as to costs in a derivative claim is not limited to impecunious claimants. The justification for the indemnity is that the claimant brings his claim for the benefit of the company. Once the court has reached the conclusion that the . .
CitedSmith v Croft ChD 1986
Walton J was concerned with two appeals from the Master. The first appeal was from an order made ex parte ordering the company to indemnify the claimant against costs. The appeal against that order was allowed, and Walton J decided that there was so . .

Cited by:

CitedDawson-Damer and Others v Taylor Wessing Llp and Others ChD 6-Aug-2015
The clamants sought orders under the 1998 Act for disclosure of documents about them by the defendant solicitors and others. The defendants said that the request would require the consideration of a very large number of documents, considering in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Company, Torts – Other

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.377212

Geoffrey Allan Chadwick, Sylvia Joyce Chadwick, Edward James Chadwick v Abbotswood Properties Ltd, Gordon Leonard Hauser, Pamela Ann Hauser, Rectory Pump Ltd: ChD 18 May 2004

Between to new houses was a steep bank. Who owned it? Before the transfer there had been different plans and much correspondence.
Held: Where there was doubt as to the extent of land transferred, the court could look to the physical boundaries and characteristics of the property. The Land Registry plan showed the boundary at the top of the bank. This matched a later boundary fence. Though the parties had orally agreed that the boundary should be at the foot of the bank, the precise location of the fence was identified, and a fence was erected in the agreed position. It would now be unconscionable for the Chadwicks to assert a claim to ownership of the bank.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison

Citations:

[2004] EWCH 1058 (Ch), [2004] All ER (D) 213

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAlan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley HL 24-Mar-1999
The parties disputed ownership of a strip of land between a garden and a farm. The land was registered. There was a hedge and a ditch along the disputed boundary, it had been conceded in the Court of Appeal that a conveyance of land on the hedge . .
CitedPartridge and others v Lawrence and others CA 8-Jul-2003
The appellants challenged a finding as to the width of a right of way over their land as exercised by the respondents.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part. Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘The claimants now have the security that this court is . .
CitedEastwood v Ashton HL 1915
Toi Identify Land, Court to Find True Meaning
A contract described the property and referred to a plan attached. The conveyance used four indications: the farm sold was said to be called by a given name, to contain 84 acres odd ‘or thereabouts’, and to be in the occupation of two different . .
CitedEastwood v Ashton HL 1915
Toi Identify Land, Court to Find True Meaning
A contract described the property and referred to a plan attached. The conveyance used four indications: the farm sold was said to be called by a given name, to contain 84 acres odd ‘or thereabouts’, and to be in the occupation of two different . .
CitedJackson v Bishop CA 1979
Where the definition of the parcels in a conveyance or transfer is not clear, then the court must have recourse to extrinsic evidence, and in particular to the physical features on the ground: ‘It seems to me that the question is one which must . .
CitedRogers and Another v Freeguard and Another CA 19-Oct-1998
The parties had drawn up and executed an option agreement. When a court considered an option to purchase ‘land known as . .’, it was able to consider extrinsic evidence to establish just what was included where the identification in the deed was . .
CitedScott v Martin 1987
When construing a land contract, the parties should not readily be assumed to have intended to act in breach of planning requirements . .
CitedLee v Barrey CA 1957
The registered proprietor of land argued that he had become owner of a larger plot of land after a transfer plan showed regular boundaries but the markings on the ground showed irregular ones: ‘as we are concerned with a general filed map or plan, . .
CitedHambrook v Fox CA 8-Feb-1993
The general boundaries rule does not mean that the plan used in a contract or transfer may be ignored. . .
CitedCutlan v Atwell CA 30-Nov-1994
The general boundaries rule does not mean that the plan on a transfer may be ignored. . .
CitedJoyce v Rigolli CA 2-Feb-2004
An agreement to resolve a boundary dispute does not need to comply with formalities of the Act.
Sir Martin Nourse said: ‘The agreement between the parties served merely to demarcate the boundary between their respective properties. It had not . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Estoppel

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.196997

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co: HL 1877

A notice to repair had been served by the landlord on the tenant. The tenant wrote offering to buy the premises and proposed deferring the commencement of repairs until the landlord responded. The landlord replied by letter asking the price. It was held that those letters had the effect of suspending the notice. The tenant’s letter was ‘a definite intimation . . that they would not proceed to execute the repairs . . if they found that there was a possibility of an agreement to purchase being come to.’ Of the courses open to the landlord, he had taken the course that he said to the tenant ‘I will adopt what you propose and enter upon a negotiation.’
More generally: (Cairns LC) ‘It is the first principle upon which all courts of equity proceed, that if parties who have entered into a definite and distinct terms involving certain legal results, certain penalties or legal forfeiture, afterwards by their own act or with their own consent enter upon a course of negotiation which has the effect of leading one of the parties to suppose that the strict rights arising under the contract will not be enforced, or will be kept in suspense or held in abeyance, the person who otherwise might have enforced those rights will not be allowed to enforce them where it would be inequitable having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties’ (Lord O’Hagan) ‘If there was real misleading and bona fide mistake, it does not matter that the Plaintiff acted honestly and without indirect purpose of any kind.’

Judges:

Cairns LC, Lord O’Hagan

Citations:

[1877] 2 App Cas 439, [1877] 46 LJQB 583, [1877] UKHL 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedAce Insurance Sa-Nv v Surendranath Seechurn CA 6-Feb-2002
The claimant sought payment under an insurance policy for his permanent disability. The judge had found that the defendant insurers had indicated a readiness to continue negotiations beyond the limitation period, and that they would apply for a stay . .
AppliedCentral London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd KBD 18-Jul-1946
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 . .
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 . .
CitedTool Metal Manufactuing Company Ltd v Tungsten Electric Company Ltd HL 16-Jun-1955
The principle in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway could apply to a reduction by concession in payments due to a creditor and a concession could be terminated by giving reasonable notice. . .
CitedCollier v P and M J Wright (Holdings) Ltd CA 14-Dec-2007
Agreement for payment by joint debtor not contract
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order to set aside a statutory demand. He said that he had compromised a claim by the creditors. He argued for an extension to the Rule in Pinnel’s case, so that where a debtor agrees to pay part of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Landlord and Tenant

Leading Case

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.183472

Western 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 failed. The court tried to reconcile invocations of estoppel with the general principle that for a public authority: ‘an estoppel cannot be raised to prevent the exercise of a statutory discretion or to prevent or excuse the performance of a statutory duty.’
Estoppel cannot be used so as to fetter a statutory discretion entrusted to a local authority

Judges:

Megaw, Lawton, Browne LJJ

Citations:

[1981] 2 All ER 204, [1978] EWCA Civ 6, (1978) 38 P and CR 7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHammersley v Baron De Biel, An Infant, By W J Blake, His Next Friend HL 25-Mar-1845
The Plaintiffs father, B, had agreed with one T that he would marry T’s daughter and provide a jointure for her in consideration of T’s undertaking to leave a sum of pounds 10,000 in his will to his daughter to be settled on her and her children. B . .
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 . .
CitedPlimmer v Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City of Wellington PC 1884
(New Zealand) Mr Plimmer had occupied land under a revocable licence from the Corporation’s predecessor-in-title and at their request had made extensive improvements to it. He sought compensation when the land was to be vested in the defendant. The . .
CitedEvenden v Guildford Football Club CA 1975
Lord Denning rejected an argument that, for promissory estoppels to apply, parties must be contractually bound to one another saying: ‘Promissory estoppel . . applies whenever a representation is made, whether of fact or law, present or future, . .
CitedMaritime Electric Company Limited v General Dairies Limited PC 8-Feb-1937
(Canada) . .
ApprovedBrooks and Burton Ltd v The Secretary of State for the Environment 1977
Lord Widgery, Lord Chief Justice, discussed extending the concept of estoppel saying: ‘There has been some advance in recent years of this doctrine of estoppel as applied to local authorities through their officers, and the most advanced case is the . .
CitedCentral London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd KBD 18-Jul-1946
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 . .
CitedSouthend-on-Sea Corporation v Hodgson (Wickford) Ltd QBD 1961
The Corporation had, by its engineer, said that its permission for the use of land as a builder’s yard was not in fact and law required. It was mistaken in this view.
Held: What the engineer had said could not create an estoppel preventing the . .
CitedCampbell Discount Company Ltd v Bridge CA 1961
Agreed compensation is not a penalty
A hirer under a hire purchase agreement could terminate the hiring during the course of the term whereupon the hirer was required to pay a sum by way of agreed compensation.
Held: A sum of money payable under a contract on the occurrence of an . .
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 . .
CitedWells v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1967
It had been the practice of planning authorities, acting through their officers, to tell applicants whether or not planning permission was necessary. A letter was written by the Council Engineer telling the applicants that no permission was . .
CitedLever (Finance) Ltd v City of Westminster CA 22-Jul-1970
The appellant developers had obtained detailed planning approval for fourteen houses, but after adjustments for a building line, moving several properties distances of several feet toward other properties, further plans were submitted without . .
CitedMoorgate Mercantile Company Ltd v Twitchings CA 1975
Lord Denning MR held: ‘Estoppel is not a rule of evidence. It is not a cause of action. It is a principle of justice and of equity. It comes to this. When a man, by his words or conduct, has led another to believe in a particular state of affairs, . .

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 . .
CitedDownderry Construction Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Another Admn 11-Jan-2002
The applicant had an existing planning permission. They sought and received confirmation from the local authority that the permission remained in effect. They then sought a certificate of lawful use. The letter confirming the permission had been . .
CitedRegina v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan and Secretary of State for Health Intervenor and Royal College of Nursing Intervenor CA 16-Jul-1999
Consultation to be Early and Real Listening
The claimant was severely disabled as a result of a road traffic accident. She and others were placed in an NHS home for long term disabled people and assured that this would be their home for life. Then the health authority decided that they were . .
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 . .
CitedLondon Borough of Bexley v Maison Maurice Ltd ChD 15-Dec-2006
The council had taken land by compulsory purchase in order to construct a dual carriageway. It then claimed that it had left undedicated a strip .5 metre wide as a ransom strip to prevent the defendant restoring access to the road.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Estoppel, Local Government

Leading Case

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.262693

Collier v P and M J Wright (Holdings) Ltd: CA 14 Dec 2007

Agreement for payment by joint debtor not contract

The claimant appealed against refusal of an order to set aside a statutory demand. He said that he had compromised a claim by the creditors. He argued for an extension to the Rule in Pinnel’s case, so that where a debtor agrees to pay part of a joint debt, and to become severally liable for that part, the parties have necessarily entered into a binding agreement for good consideration that the debtor’s liability for the rest of the joint debt is discharged. He had been one of three partners owing a substantial debt to the creditors. He said he had been told he would not be pursued if he paid at a third of the rate for all three, and that he had done so.
Held: The fact that a creditor agrees with a joint debtor to accept payment from him alone of his proportionate share does not result in a binding agreement. Accordingly, this factual paradigm does not constitute yet another situation when the rule in Pinnel’s case is avoided.
As to the argument that an estoppel had been created, the effect of promissory estoppel is usually suspensory only, but, if the effect of resiling is sufficiently inequitable, a debtor may be able to show that the right to recover the debt is not merely postponed but extinguished. The defendant had an arguable case for an estoppel, and the appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Arden LJ, Longmore LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1329, [2007] NPC 136, [2008] 1 WLR 643, [2007] BPIR 1452

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPinnel’s Case, Penny v Core CCP 1602
Payment of Lesser Sum Not Satisfaction
(Court of Common Pleas) The payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater, cannot be any satisfaction for the whole. The gift of a horse, hawk, robe, etc., in satisfaction, is good. Payment of part before the day and acceptance may . .
CitedFoakes v Beer HL 16-May-1884
Mrs Beer had obtained judgment against Dr Foakes for pounds 2,090 19s. He asked for time to pay and they agreed with him, acknowledging the debt, and paying part immediately and undertaking to pay the balance over a period of time. In consideration . .
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 . .
CitedWilliams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd CA 23-Nov-1989
The defendant subcontracted some of its work under a building contract to the plaintiff at a price which left him in financial difficulty and there was a risk that the work would not be completed by the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to make . .
CitedAlpine Bulk Transport Co Inc v Saudi Eagle Shipping Co Inc The ‘Saudi Eagle’ CA 1986
The defendants, believing that they had no assets, deliberately allowed an interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed to be entered against them by default, and only after damages had been assessed and final judgment entered, realising that . .
CitedBryce Ashworth v Newnote Ltd CA 27-Jul-2007
The appellant challenged a refusal to set aside a statutory demand, in respect of his director’s loan account with the respondent company, saying the court should have accepted other accounts to set off against that debt.
Held: A statutory . .
CitedKellar v BBR Graphic Engineers (Yorks) Ltd ChD 2002
The court was asked whether the district judge had applied the right test on an application to set aside a statutory demand because the conclusions of the district judge referred to a real prospect of success, the test used in CPR 24.2, rather than . .
CitedHughes v Metropolitan Railway Co HL 1877
A notice to repair had been served by the landlord on the tenant. The tenant wrote offering to buy the premises and proposed deferring the commencement of repairs until the landlord responded. The landlord replied by letter asking the price. It was . .
CitedCentral London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd KBD 18-Jul-1946
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 . .
CitedTool Metal Manufactuing Company Ltd v Tungsten Electric Company Ltd HL 16-Jun-1955
The principle in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway could apply to a reduction by concession in payments due to a creditor and a concession could be terminated by giving reasonable notice. . .
CitedD and C Builders Ltd v Rees CA 1966
The plaintiff builders had been chasing payment of their undisputed invoice. Knowing that the builders were in financial difficulties, the defendant offered rather less, saying that if it was not accepted, she would pay nothing. She made the payment . .
CitedCouldery v Bartrum 1881
coulder_bartrum1881
A secured creditor was not entitled to amend after a composition had been taken and completed. Sir George Jessel MR said: ‘According to English common law a creditor might accept anything in satisfaction of his debt except a less amount of money. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Contract, Estoppel

Leading Case

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.262160

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedCentral London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd KBD 18-Jul-1946
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: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.250976

Smith v Lawson: CA 5 Jun 1997

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1802

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCentral London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd KBD 18-Jul-1946
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.142198

Birmingham and District Land Co v London and North Western Railway: CA 1886

The court considered the creation of an estoppel: Cotton LJ: ‘. . what passed did not make a new agreement, but . . what took place . . raised an equity against him.’
Bowen LJ said: ‘The truth is that the proposition is wider than cases of forfeiture. It seems to me to amount to this, that if persons who have contractual rights against others induce by their conduct those against whom they have such rights to believe that such rights will either not be enforced or will be kept in suspense or abeyance for some particular time, those persons will not be allowed by a Court of Equity to enforce the rights until such time has elapsed, without at all events placing the parties in the same position as they were before. That is the principle to be applied. I will not say it is not a principle that was recognised by Courts of Law as well as of Equity. It is not necessary to consider how far it was always a principle of common law.’
Fry LJ considered that there was an essential difference between a claim for damages for breach of a contract and a claim for an indemnity under an express provision in a contract.

Judges:

Cotton LJ, Fry LJ, Bowen LJ

Citations:

(1886) 40 ChD 268

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCentral London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd KBD 18-Jul-1946
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.251177

D and C Builders Ltd v Rees: CA 1966

The plaintiff builders had been chasing payment of their undisputed invoice. Knowing that the builders were in financial difficulties, the defendant offered rather less, saying that if it was not accepted, she would pay nothing. She made the payment in full and final satisfaction of the debt.
Held: The claim for the balance succeeded. The pressure applied had been improper, and there was no ground in equity to disentitle the plantiff recovering the rest.
When a debtor offers to pay only that which he admits he is already due to pay, that is not something which can amount to good consideration for the creditor abandoning the rest, save possibly in certain special circumstances. The doctrine of promissory estoppel only applies when it is inequitable for the creditor (or other representor) to insist on his full rights.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘This principle [the principle of promissory estoppel] has been applied to cases where a creditor agrees to accept a lesser sum in discharge of a greater. So much so that we can now say that, when a creditor and a debtor enter upon a course of negotiation, which leads the debtor to suppose that, on payment of the lesser sum, the creditor will not enforce payment of the balance, and on the faith thereof the debtor pays the lesser sum and the creditor accepts it as satisfaction: then the creditor will not be allowed to enforce payment of the balance when it would be inequitable to do so. This was well illustrated during the last war. Tenants went away to escape the bombs and left their houses unoccupied. The landlords accepted a reduced rent for the time they were empty. It was held that the landlords could not afterwards turn round and sue for the balance, see Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. This caused at the time some eyebrows to be raised in high places. But they have been lowered since. The solution was so obviously just that no one could well gainsay it.
In applying this principle, however, we must note the qualification: The creditor is only barred from his legal rights when it would be inequitable for him to insist upon them. Where there has been a true accord, under which the creditor voluntarily agrees to accept a lesser sum in satisfaction, and the debtor acts upon that accord by paying the lesser sum and the creditor accepts it, then it is inequitable for the creditor afterwards to insist on the
Danckwerts LJ said that the case of Foakes v Beer: ‘settled definitely the rule of law that payment of a lesser sum than the amount of a debt due cannot be a satisfaction of the debt, unless there is some benefit to the creditor added so that there is an accord and satisfaction.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Dankwerts LJ

Citations:

[1966] 2 QB 617, [1965] EWCA Civ 3, [1965] 3 All ER 837, [1966] 2 WLR 28

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCentral London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd KBD 18-Jul-1946
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 . .
CitedHirachand Punamchand v Temple CA 1911
The defendant, a British army officer in India, had given a promissory note to the plaintiff moneylenders. Unable to pay, he suggested they apply to his father, Sir Richard Temple. In reply, Sir Richard Temple’s solicitors wrote saying they were . .

Cited by:

CitedBradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid HL 12-Jul-2006
Disapplication of Without Prejudice Rules
The House was asked whether a letter sent during without prejudice negotiations which acknowledged a debt was admissible to restart the limitation period. An advice centre, acting for the borrower had written, in answer to a claim by the lender for . .
CitedCollier v P and M J Wright (Holdings) Ltd CA 14-Dec-2007
Agreement for payment by joint debtor not contract
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order to set aside a statutory demand. He said that he had compromised a claim by the creditors. He argued for an extension to the Rule in Pinnel’s case, so that where a debtor agrees to pay part of a . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.243135

MacDonald and Another v Frost: ChD 5 Oct 2009

Claim by Professor Averil Macdonald and Ms Deborah Bannigan, who are the daughters of the late Joseph Henry Frost, to an equitable interest in their late father’s estate on the basis of an alleged proprietary estoppel.

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2276 (Ch), [2009] WTLR 1815, [2010] 1 P and CR DG14, (2010) 12 ITELR 577, [2009] 41 EG 114 (CS)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Estoppel, Trusts

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.376150

Sarwar v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (Rev 1): ChD 27 Jul 2011

The claimant appealed against a finding of indebtedness to the bank. He had said at trial that the bank had been charging interest at 25%. The bank denied this, but after trial it became clear that he had been correct. The bank argued for abuse of process, res judicata and estoppel, and requested a strike out of the claim.
Held: There could be no action or issue estoppel. The allegations included matters not previously at issue: ‘the appeal must be allowed. I view that result with satisfaction. Many might ask why the Bank’s response to realising that it had provided incorrect information to Blackburne J and to the (its) Customer would not be to seek to put that right. It is obvious that had the Bank provided correct information Blackburne J would have ensured there was a means by which its entitlement to charge interest at that rate could be examined. Putting right what the Bank had done wrong would involve the Bank’s supporting a course that would allow examination of its entitlement to charge interest at 25%, rather than seeking to take advantage its own error by arguing that the matter was closed.’

Judges:

Knowles QC J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2233 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHenderson 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 . .
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 . .
CitedRepublic of India and Others v India Steamship Co Ltd (‘The Indian Endurance and The Indian Grace’) (No 1) HL 29-Mar-1993
Munitions were being carried to Cochin on board the defendants’ vessel. Some was jettisoned in a fire and the remainder was damaged. The cargo owners sought damages in India for short delivery under the bills of lading, as to the jettisoned cargo . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedThoday v Thoday CA 1964
The court discussed the difference between issue estoppel, and action estoppel: ‘The particular type of estoppel relied upon by the husband is estoppel per rem judicatam. This is a generic term which in modern law includes two species. The first . .
CitedBrisbane 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 . .
CitedLetang v Cooper CA 15-Jun-1964
The plaintiff, injured in an accident, pleaded trespass to the person, which was not a breach of duty within the proviso to the section, in order to achieve the advantages of a six-year limitation period.
Held: Trespass is strictly speaking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Estoppel

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443238

Aker Oil and Gas Technology UK Plc v Sovereign Corporate Limited: TCC 15 Jan 2002

The claimants sought payment of a bonus for having completed the construction of a vessel on time. They claimed that certificates estopped the defendants from admitting the bonus to be due. The defendants said the certificates had been issued in reliance upon false representations made by the claimants.
Held: The defendant was estopped from denying the validity of the certificates.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Richard Havery Q.C.

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 104 (Technology)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.167529

Fraser v HLMAD Limited: CA 15 Jun 2006

The claimant had been dismissed as chief executive. He had made a claim in the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, but reserved the right to make further claims. The defendant argued that he was not estopped from pursuing those claims.
Held: Mummery LJ said: ‘In my judgment, this was clearly a case of merger of Mr Fraser’s cause of action for wrongful dismissal in the final judgment of the tribunal on the claim for wrongful dismissal as between the same parties as in the High Court proceedings. Merger was not prevented from taking place by the express statement in the ET1 that Mr Fraser expressly reserved his rights to bring High Court proceedings for the excess. The merger arose from the fact that the cause of action had been the subject of a final judgment of the tribunal. Once it had merged Mr Fraser no longer had any cause of action which he could pursue in the High Court, even for the excess over andpound;25,000. The claim for the excess is not a separate cause of action. The cause of action for wrongful dismissal could not be split into two causes of action, one for damages up to andpound;25,000 and another for the balance. A claim in the High Court for the balance of the loss determined in the tribunal would have to be based on a single indivisible cause of action for wrongful dismissal.’
Moore-Bick LJ said: ‘The Employment Tribunal has a statutory jurisdiction to determine claims for wrongful dismissal and, although its jurisdiction to grant relief is subject to a financial limit, its judgment may be enforced in accordance with its terms through the County Court procedure. The judgment creates a new and independent obligation which is in substance of the same character as a judgment of the court. Since, as the authorities show, a judgment of the Employment Tribunal gives rise to cause of action estoppel, I think it must follow that the doctrine of merger as described by Diplock L.J. in Thoday v Thoday and Lord Goff in The ‘Indian Grace’ also applies in cases where the claimant is successful and obtains judgment on his claim. Accordingly, I can see no escape from the conclusion that when judgment has been entered in favour of the claimant the cause of action merges in the judgment and is extinguished. The result in this case is that once the tribunal’s judgment had been entered on the register Mr. Fraser no longer had any cause of action for wrongful dismissal and his reservation of the right to pursue an action in the High Court was wholly ineffective.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Moore-Bick Lord Justice Mummery

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 738, [2007] 1 All ER 383, [2006] IRLR 687, [2006] ICR 1395

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedThoday v Thoday CA 1964
The court discussed the difference between issue estoppel, and action estoppel: ‘The particular type of estoppel relied upon by the husband is estoppel per rem judicatam. This is a generic term which in modern law includes two species. The first . .

Cited by:

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

Employment, Estoppel

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.242543

Wormall v Wormall: CA 25 Nov 2004

The father had allowed his daughter to run her business from the family farm. The mother and father came to divorce, and the father required vacanat possession of the farm so that he could sell it to satisfy his liabilities in the ancillary relief award. The daughter claimed compensation for disturbance, saying he was estopped from denying her a tenancy.
Held: Though the circumstance might give rise to an estoppel, in the contect of the ancillary relief award, it would be wrong to call upon the father to pay the daughter compensation.

Judges:

May LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ, Neuberger LJ

Citations:

Times 01-Dec-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 1643

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 . .
CitedJennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed CA 22-Feb-2002
The claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel against the respondents. He had worked for the deceased over many years, for little payment, and doing more and more for her. Though he still worked full time at first, he came to spend nights at the . .
CitedCrabb 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.220174

Ing Bank Nv v Ros Roca Sa: CA 31 Mar 2011

The court was asked to construe a clause governing the calculation of an ‘additional fee’ for financial services provided by ING Bank NV (‘ING’) to Ros Roca SA (‘Ros Roca’). In monetary terms ING claims 6,700,000 Euros; on Ros Roca’s interpretation, upheld by the judge, the correct amount is 943,922.44 euros. The cross-appeal is based on the contention that, even if ING succeeds on the construction issue, it is precluded by estoppel from relying on that construction.
‘Construction cannot be pushed beyond its proper limits in pursuit of remedying what is perceived to be a flaw in the working of a contract. It is now clear, in a less literalist era, that where a contract makes commercial nonsense on its own terms, it should be interpreted if possible in a way which avoids the absurdity.’

Judges:

Rix, Carnwath, Stanley Burnton LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 353, [2012] Bus LR 266, [2012] 1 WLR 472

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.431608

Foster 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 the Respondent he submitted an ET1 alleging he had been laid off.
By a judgment of Employment Judge Salter (‘the first judgment’), it was held that the Claimant was not entitled to redundancy pay. The Claimant was dismissed because of retirement with effect from 31 July 2009.
He then submitted a new ET1 claiming, among other things, four different types of unfair dismissal, notice pay in breach of contract and a guarantee payment.
The Respondent applies to have the claims struck out as being res judicata by reason of the first judgment on alternatively as an abuse in the Henderson v Henderson sense. The application was granted save in respect of the guarantee payment. The Claimant appealed and the Respondent cross-appealed in respect of the guarantee payment.
Held –
1. Appeal allowed as:
(a) Res judicata did not apply as although the first Tribunal held that the Claimant was not dismissed by reason of redundancy, this did not create an estoppel as (i) this finding was not necessary for the decision as the claim was layoff (Arnold v National Westminster Bank [1991] 2 AC 93, 105 applied; and (ii) In any event, the first Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with a redundancy as it was premature (Watts v Rubery Owen [1997] 2 All ER 1, applied);
(b) This was not a case of abuse as there was no oppressive conduct and this was not a case of the Claimant abusing the court process (Johnson v Gore-Wood [2002] 2 AC 1, 31 applied).
The cross-appeal was dismissed as the Employment Judge was entitled to conclude that it was not an abuse in the Henderson v Henderson sense to pursue this claim in the second action.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2011] UKEAT 0382 – 10 – 1703

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHenderson 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 . .
Still Good LawWatts v Rubery Owen Conveyancer Limited EAT 1977
The claimant sought a redundancy payment. The employer said that his employment had not yet finished.
Held: Kilner Brown J said: ‘The effect of these cases is that where an application is made to an Industrial Tribunal before the act of . .
MentionedPritchard-Rhodes Limited v Boon and Milton EAT 1979
An application to the Industrial Tribunal for a redundancy payment was not effective because it failed to comply with the statutory requirements which, on their true construction, provided that an application could not be effectively made to an . .
CitedO’Laoire v Jackel International Limited (No 2) CA 1991
On taking up employment the plaintiff was told he would later be appointed managing director. His employment was terminated, and he sought damages.
Held: The defendant was estopped from denying it would appoint him managing director, since . .
CitedArnold 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 . .
CitedDanyluk v Ainsworth Technologies Inc 12-Jul-2001
Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Administrative law – Issue estoppel – Employee filing complaint against employer under Employment Standards Act seeking unpaid wages and commissions – Employee subsequently . .
CitedMeek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
CitedChapman v Simon CA 1994
The court considered the approach where a party sought to raise on appeal a complaint not made in the case presented to the tribunal.
Held: An Employment Tribunal must decide the issues which are put before it and should not decide issues . .
CitedSouth Durham Health Authority v Unison EAT 6-Feb-1995
Mummery J P said: ‘Similarly in the case of entitlement to redundancy payments discussed in the authorities relied on by [counsel] there is no right of action, no entitlement to the payments before the date of termination has arrived. An originating . .
CitedWilliams, Regina v CACD 2-Nov-2010
The offence of causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured, is committed if the driver is unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured and if the driving is a cause of death in the sense that it was ‘more than negligible or de . .
CitedWatt (Formerly Carter) v Ahsan HL 21-Nov-2007
The claimant was a Pakistani member of the Labour Party. He had sought selection as parliamentary candidate, but allegations had been made about behaviour of members in the Pakistani community in his ward and the local party had been suspended. A . .
CitedManson v Vooght and Others CA 3-Nov-1998
The claimant was the former managing director of a company, which had been placed into administrative receivership. The claims were for breach of contract and conversion (in relation to antique furniture) and they were brought against the . .
CitedHM Prison Service v Barua EAT 15-Nov-2006
EAT Time Limits
Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal
For the purpose of the extension of the time afforded by reg. 15 of the . .
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 . .
CitedMorris v Wentworth-Stanley CA 4-Sep-1998
Two actions had been brought by a contractor against the partners in a farming partnership. Those actions were consolidated. One of the partners died and when the plaintiff found that out he discontinued his claims against the deceased partner and . .
CitedBradford and Bingley Building Society v Seddon and Hancock; Walsh and Rhodes (Trading As Hancocks (a Firm) CA 11-Mar-1999
There was an unsatisfied judgment on a claim by a defendant in an earlier action against a third party. In a subsequent action against the defendant the latter issued third party proceedings against the original and different third parties.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Estoppel

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430660

Keelwalk Properties Ltd v Betty Waller and Another: CA 30 Jul 2002

The claimant appealed refusal of its claim for possession against the respondents, occupiers of single-storey wooden bungalows on its land. The leases had expired. The defendants said the structures were their own, and not subject to the lease, and an order would infringe their human rights. They also claimed an estoppel based on reassurances given by a former landowner. The new landowner would only grant new leases at a higher rent. The bungalows were not occupied as residences.
Held: A long-standing practice cannot in itself justify an expectation that the practice will continue in perpetuity. No estoppel arose. The Human Rights claim had not been pursued, and the owners were not secure tenants entitled to new leases. The appeal was granted.

Judges:

The Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1076, [2002] 3 EGLR 79

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedElitestone Ltd v Morris and Another HL 1-May-1997
The plaintiff acquired land on which 27 chalets were erected. They served notice to quit so that the site could be developed. The defendants argued that they had residential tenancies with protection under the Rent Act 1977.
Held: The tenants’ . .
CitedIn re Basham dec’d; Basham v Basham 1986
The claimant and her husband had helped her mother and her stepfather throughout the claimant’s adult life. She received no remuneration but understood that she would inherit her stepfather’s property when he died. After her mother’s death and until . .

Cited 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.

Land, Estoppel

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.174436

Calzaghe v Warren: QBD 20 Jan 2010

The claimant boxer had secured judgement for fight fees from a company operated by the respondent manager and promoter. After the judgment the defendant had put the company into administration. The claimant now sought payment from the defendant personally, alleging dishonesty in the conduct of the claim. The defendant sought to argue that there was no issue estoppel to prevent him denying his dishonesty in this second case.
Held: The issue had been decided in the earlier case. The claimant should be allowed to amend his pleadings as requested.

Judges:

Jack J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 71 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedCarl 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 . .
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 . .
CitedOJSC Oil Company Yugraneft v Abramovich and others ComC 29-Oct-2008
The claimants sought damages alleging a massive fraud by the defendants. The court considered whether the parties could receive a fair trial of the action in Russia.
Held: They could. Christopher Clarke J said: ‘Firstly, this case is in no way . .
CitedIn re Queens Moat Houses Plc; Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow, Hersey, Marcus, Porter ChD 19-Jul-2004
Mr Bairstow had been found guilty of grave misconduct and neglect of his duties in wrongful dismissal proceedings which he brought against a company of which he had been the managing director. The Secretary of State now sought an order against him . .
CitedIn re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427294

Flanagan and Another v South Bucks District Council: CA 16 May 2002

The authority had commenced planning enforcement proceedings. At the hearing, agreement was reached between the defendant and the authority’s representative, and the proceedings were compromised. The authority itself later sought to set aside the compromise claiming that its officer had acted outside his power.
Held: The officer had power to compromise the proceedings in which he acted, but did not have power to withdraw the enforcement notice itself. No legitimate expectation had been created, and the doctrine of estoppel, which is a matter of private law, has no place in public planning law.

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene and Mr Justice Sumner

Citations:

Gazette 20-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 690, [2002] 1 WLR 2601

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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

Planning, Local Government, Estoppel

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.172228

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.197738

Hormel Foods Corporation v Antilles Landscape Investments NV: ChD 24 Jan 2005

The claimant had alread challenged the validity of the defendant’s registered trade mark, but sought to do so now on grounds which could have been advanced in the earlier case. The claimant owned the trade mark ‘SPAM’ for canned meats, and the defendant had the mark ‘SPAMBUSTER’ for computer programs.
Held: The claim was estopped. The law of estoppel as it applied to patents and registered design cases applied also to trade mark actions. If a party attacked the validity of a mark at trial, he had a duty to put his entire case. Whether he did so or not, if he failed, he would be estopped form trying again, even on different grounds. This kind of estoppel did not however bar a claim for revocation, because that concerned different events, namely those which had occurred after registration, and which could not have been advanced in a challenge to the validity of the mark.

Judges:

Richard Arnold QC

Citations:

[2005] ETMR 54, Times 28-Feb-2005, [2005] RPC 28, [2005] EWHC 13 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Marks Act 1994 47

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHenderson 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 . .
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 . .
CitedThoday v Thoday CA 1964
The court discussed the difference between issue estoppel, and action estoppel: ‘The particular type of estoppel relied upon by the husband is estoppel per rem judicatam. This is a generic term which in modern law includes two species. The first . .
CitedRead v Brown CA 1-Dec-1888
Lord Esher defined the phrase ’cause of action’ to mean ‘Every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court.’ . .

Cited by:

CitedSpecial Effects Ltd v L’Oreal Sa and others ChD 17-Mar-2006
The defendant had previously opposed the registration of the claimant’s trade mark before the Comptroller General, but failed. The claimant now in infringement procedings sought the strike out of the defendant’s challenge to its validity.
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Estoppel

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.223317

In re C and M Ashberg: 17 Jul 1990

An estoppel by representation could not be used to establish satisfaction of a stautory condition.

Citations:

Times 17-Jul-1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRevenue and Customs Commissioners v Pal and Others ChD 31-Jul-2006
The taxpayers had challenged an assessment to VAT saying that they were not actually partners in the company assessed. The revenue countered to say that they had signed the registration form to say that they were partners. The revenue now appealed a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.244745

Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Exel UK Ltd and Another: ChD 25 Jun 2009

The landlord denied the effectiveness of a notice given to break the lease, saying that it had not been given by all the tenants. The tenants replied that the landlord was estopped from not accepting the notice.

Judges:

Jeremy Cousins QC

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1350 (Ch), [2010] L and TR 7, [2010] 1 P and CR 7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.374032

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.242178

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 pounds 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

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 . .
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: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.259532

Laird v Birkenhead Railway Co: 22 Nov 1859

The plaintiff applied to the defendant railway company for permission to construct and use a private branch line connecting with the railway company’s main line. Agreement was reached for the plaintiff to do so ‘on reasonable terms, which were to be afterwards settled.’ The plaintiff, acting on this agreement, constructed and used the branch line and for some two and a half years paid tolls at an agreed rate to the railway company. Agreement in principle was reached on the details of the plaintiff’s user of the branch line but a formal agreement was never signed. The railway company gave notice to the plaintiff to cease his user of the branch line.
Held: The railway company had allowed the plaintiff ‘to expend his money on the faith that he would be permitted to join their line on reasonable terms’ and that the tolls agreed upon and paid by the plaintiff for his past user must be assumed to represent reasonable terms. ‘It must’, said the Vice-Chancellor, ‘be inferred, from the nature of the transaction, that the privilege of using the line was not to be determinable.’

Judges:

Page Wood V-C

Citations:

(1859) Johns 500, [1859] EngR 1021, (1859) 70 ER 519

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
CitedHooper and Another v Oates CA 20-Feb-2013
The parties had agreed for the purchase of land, but the buyer, Mr Oates, failed to complete. A notice to complete was served, and on non-compliance, the repudiation was accepted. It proved difficult to resell, and they suffered substantial losses. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.276428

Shelley v United Artists Corporation Limited: CA 1989

There was a subletting arrangement. United Artists, who were the sub-tenant’s competent landlord under Part II of the 1954 Act, served a notice on the tenant, and then a further notice on the head landlord. The result of second notice was that United Artists ceased to be the competent landlord of the tenant. The tenant did not know, and served a Counter-Notice on, and mistakenly issued proceedings against United Artists. They should have targeted the head landlord, who was now the competent landlord. United Artists then took a fresh over-riding lease, as a result of which they became, once again, the competent landlord of the tenant.
Held: United Artists were estopped from denying that they were the competent landlord at the time the tenant served the notice and issued the proceedings, partly because they were under an obligation to tell the tenant that they had ceased to be the competent landlord, and partly because they must have appreciated that the tenant was labouring under a misapprehension.

Judges:

Dillon Russell and Butler-Sloss LJJ

Citations:

(1989) 60 P and CR 241, [1990] EGLR 103

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.214627

Seele Austria Gmbh Co v Tokio Marine Europe Insurance Ltd: TCC 17 Feb 2009

There will rarely be a finding of abuse of process without the court deeming the subsequent claim to amount to unjust harassment or oppression.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 255 (TCC), [2009] BLR 261

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Insurance, Construction, Estoppel

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291788

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.180372

Manton Securities Ltd v Nazam (T/A New Dadyal Cash and Carry): CA 17 Jul 2008

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 805

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedJavad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270870

Bank of Scotland v Wright: ChD 1991

A director of two companies (one a subsidiary of the other) had given the bank a written guarantee of the liability of the holding company (only); but under an ‘interavailable’ facility backed by cross-guarantees (by the companies) the holding company was liable for the subsidiary’s indebtedness to the bank. When the bank sued the individual guarantor for the whole of the corporate indebtedness there were two issues, the construction of the guarantee and (if the bank failed on that point) estoppel by convention.
Held: The court decided the first point in favour of the bank, and said cautiously on the second (after referring to what Viscount Radcliffe said in Kok Hoong and to Humphries v Humphries [1910] 2 KB 531): ‘In the light of these authorities I would not exclude the possibility that circumstances might arise in which a guarantor might have acted in such a way as to create or influence the other party’s mistaken belief in the effectiveness of his guarantee so that it would be unconscionable to allow him to rely on the Statute of Frauds. Such a finding would depend very much on the court’s views, on the facts of any particular case, of the personalities and attributes of the two parties between whom the alleged estoppel was alleged to have arisen’

Judges:

Brooke J

Citations:

[1991] BCLC 244

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedKok Hoong v Leong Cheong Kweng Mines Ltd PC 1964
A clear public policy underlying a statute (for instance, the need to protect vulnerable persons dealing with moneylenders or landlords) prevents an estoppel arising: ‘To ask whether the law that confronts the estoppel can be seen to represent a . .
CitedHumphries 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 . .

Cited by:

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

Estoppel

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.180432

Campbell v Leeds United Association Football: Misc 3 Apr 2009

The claimant sought damages for psychiatric injury suffered when working for the defendant who replied that the matter had already been litigated in her claims in the Employment Tribunal, and that a cause of action estoppel applied.
Held: The decision in Fraser v HLMAD was distinguished. The cause of action now pleaded was not that taken to the tribunal. No estoppel applied, and nor did any claim of abuse of process.

Judges:

Behrens J

Citations:

[2009] EW Misc 4 (EWCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedThoday v Thoday CA 1964
The court discussed the difference between issue estoppel, and action estoppel: ‘The particular type of estoppel relied upon by the husband is estoppel per rem judicatam. This is a generic term which in modern law includes two species. The first . .
CitedFraser v HLMAD Limited CA 15-Jun-2006
The claimant had been dismissed as chief executive. He had made a claim in the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, but reserved the right to make further claims. The defendant argued that he was not estopped from pursuing those claims.
CitedHenderson 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 . .
CitedBrisbane 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 . .
CitedSeele Austria Gmbh Co v Tokio Marine Europe Insurance Ltd TCC 17-Feb-2009
There will rarely be a finding of abuse of process without the court deeming the subsequent claim to amount to unjust harassment or oppression. . .
CitedArnold 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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.329586

Bhambhani v Willowcourt Managment Co (1985) Ltd: LT 14 Apr 2008

LT LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – construction of lease – estoppel – whether tenant estopped from denying that increased quarterly payments on account of service charges were due despite not having been increased in the manner provided for by the lease – whether estoppel being used as a sword not a shield.

Citations:

[2008] EWLands LRX – 22 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270490

Agip SpA v Navigazione Alta Italia SpA, “The Nai Genova”: CA 1984

Rectification was sought of an escalation clause in a charter-party which provided for a base figure in US dollars to be increased by reference to Italian inflation. The plaintiffs claimed that an accord had been reached that the base figure should be in lire rather than dollars, but that when the defendants prepared a draft charter-party, they put the base figure in dollars.
Held: The claim failed. The effect of allowing rectification for unilateral mistake was to impose on the defendants a contract which, at the time of its execution, they did not intend to make. In the absence of estoppel, fraud, undue influence or a fiduciary relationship between the parties, the authorities did not in any circumstances permit the rectification of a contract on the grounds of unilateral mistake, unless the defendant had actual knowledge of the existence of the relevant mistaken belief at the time when the mistaken plaintiff signed the contract. The authorities required actual knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the plaintiff’s mistake. There could be a case of an implied misrepresentation that a proffered draft gave effect to an accord and of a resultant estoppel if it was intended or reasonably foreseeable that the representation would be relied on and if the representee relied on that representation. On the facts those conditions were not satisfied. It had not been shown that the defendants intended or foresaw that the plaintiff would rely on any such representation when the defendants could have reasonably assumed that the plaintiffs would have read the escalation clause for themselves and would have noted any objection when discussing the clause with the defendants. The greater the degree of the carelessness in not detecting the error, the more unrealistic it became for the plaintiffs to assert that the reliance on the representation was foreseeable. The plaintiff’s witnesses did not attempt to blame the defendants for their mistake. The court was unpersuaded that there had been sharp practice by the defendants or that it would be inequitable to allow them to resist the claim for rectification. ‘As the law stands, the conditions which must be satisfied if rectification is to be granted on the grounds of common mistake may, in my opinion, be summarized as follows: First, there must be a common intention in regard to the particular provisions of the agreement in question, together with some outward expression of accord. Secondly, this common intention must continue up to the time of the execution of the instrument. Thirdly, there must be clear evidence that the instrument as executed does not accurately represent the true agreement of the parties at the time of its execution. Fourthly, it must be shown that the instrument, if rectified as claimed, would accurately represent the true agreement of the parties at that time . . The standard of proof required in an action of rectification to establish the common intention of the parties is the civil standard of balance of probabilities. Nevertheless, parties who append their signature to a written instrument prima facie indicate, by the very fact of their signatures, their assent to all the terms contained in it. In these circumstances’
Slade LJ (with whom Oliver and Robert Goff LJJ agreed) summarised the requirements in this way: ‘First, there must be a common intention in regard to the particular provisions of the agreement in question, together with some outward expression of accord. Secondly, this common intention must continue up to the time of execution of the instrument. Thirdly, there must be clear evidence that the instrument as executed does not accurately represent the true agreement of the parties at the time of its execution. Fourthly, it must be shown that the instrument, if rectified as claimed, would accurately represent the true agreement of the parties at that time . . ‘

Judges:

Slade, Oliver and Robert Goff LLJ

Citations:

[1984] 1 Lloyds Law Reports 353

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd CA 31-Jul-2019
Rectification – Chartbrook not followed
Opportunity for an appellate court to clarify the correct test to apply in deciding whether the written terms of a contract may be rectified because of a common mistake.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge was right to conclude that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.216652

Hardy and others v Fowle and Another: ChD 26 Oct 2007

Mortgagees claimed possession of the land. The occupiers claimed a right of occupation under a lease. The mortgagees argued that the lease had been surrendered.
Held: The lease had been surrendered by a deed. The defects in notice alleged did not affect the result. The bank’s claim under estoppel was made out.

Judges:

John Randall QC

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2423 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedYorkshire Bank Plc v Hall and Others CA 18-Dec-1998
The Court of Appeal is not strictly bound by the terms of leave to appeal given, but where the points had been specifically considered a point could only be heard with the leave of the Court of Appeal which had full power to regulate its own . .
CitedTarjomani v Panther Securities Ltd CA 1983
The tenant disputed whether he had surrendered the property in the lease.
Held: The court considered the basis of an implied surrender: ‘In my judgment, it is indeed estoppel that forms the foundation of the doctrine. The doctrine operates . .
CitedZionmor v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Islington CA 10-Oct-1997
The council appealed a finding that the claimant, a secure tenant, had not surrendered his tenancy. He had sought to exercise his right to buy the property, but was said to have left the premises before the lease was completed. The property was . .
CitedAbbey National Building Society v Cann HL 29-Mar-1990
Registered land was bought with an advance from the plaintiff. The transfer and charge were registered one month later, but in the meantime, the buyer’s parents moved in. When the buyer defaulted, his mother resisted possession proceedings, saying . .
CitedBritish Credit Trust Holdings v UK Insurance Limited QBD 24-Oct-2003
The claimant was permitted to amend the particulars of claim in an insurance dispute in order to seek declaratory relief in respect of insurance claims arising after the proceedings had started.
Held: The lease had been surrendered by a deed. . .
CitedMaridive and Oil Services (SAE) and Another v CNA Insurance Company (Europe) Ltd CA 25-Mar-2002
The Civil Procedure Rules have allowed the Courts to accept an amendment to introduce a cause of action arising out of facts occurring subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. There is no absolute rule of law or practice which precludes an . .
CitedChurch of England Buidling Society v Piskor CA 1954
Weekly tenancies had been granted by the purchaser of the property, title to which was unregistered, before completion. The society now sought possession of the property. The tenants argued that although their tenancies were equitable, they were . .
CitedHalifax Mortgage Services Ltd (Formerly BNP Mortgages Ltd) v Stepsky and Another CA 1-Dec-1995
The knowledge of a solicitor, acting for both the borrower and the lender, of the lay clients intentions as regards the future use of the loan, is not to be imputed to the lender, even though the solicitor acts for both parties, and is the lender’s . .

Cited by:

CitedCook v The Mortgage Business Plc CA 24-Jan-2012
The land owners sought relief from possession orders made under mortgages given in equity release schemes: ‘If the purchaser raises all or part of the purchase price on mortgage, and then defaults, the issue arises whether the mortgagee’s right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.260346

Thrasyvoulou v Secretary of State for the Environment: HL 1990

A building owner appealed against enforcement notices which alleged that there had been a material change of use of his buildings in 1982. This notice was issued by a planning authority. As a result of the appeal an inspector determined that the buildings were in hotel use. The use of the buildings did not change between 1982 and 1985. Nevertheless, in the latter year the planning authority issued further enforcement notices alleging that there had been a change of use from hotel to hostel. The Court of Appeal accepted a plea of action estoppel.
Held: The House of Lords confirmed the decision.
Lord Bridge said: ‘In relation to adjudications subject to a comprehensive self-contained statutory code, the presumption, in my opinion, must be that where the statute has created a specific jurisdiction for the determination of any issue which establishes the existence of a legal right, the principle of res judicata applies to give finality to that determination unless an intention to exclude that principle can properly be inferred as a matter of construction of the relevant statutory provisions.’ And
‘The doctrine of res judicata rests on the twin principles which cannot be better expressed than in terms of the two Latin maxims ‘interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium’ and ‘nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa’. These principles are of such fundamental importance that they cannot be confined in their application to litigation in the private law field. They certainly have their place in the criminal law. In principle they must apply equally to adjudications in the field of public law. In relation to adjudications subject to a comprehensive self-contained statutory code, the presumption, in my opinion, must be that where the statute has created a specific jurisdiction for the determination of any issue which establishes the existence of a legal right, the principle of res judicata applies to give finality to that determination unless an intention to exclude that principle can properly be inferred as a matter of construction of the statutory provisions.’
and ‘the local planning authority were . . . estopped from asserting that there had been a material change of use between certain dates, which expressly contradicted the finding made by the first planning inspector, which was not merely incidental or ancillary to his decision but was an essential foundation for his conclusion that no breach of planning control was involved in the use being made of the structure which was the subject of the first notice.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge

Citations:

[1990] 2 AC 273

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSecretary of State for Education and Skills v Mairs Admn 25-May-2005
The appellant had been dismissed from the social services department of Haringey Borough Council, and her name placed on a list of persons unsuitable to work with children. She had been criticised in the statutory inquiry into the death of Victoria . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedDN (Rwanda), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 26-Feb-2020
Challenge to imprisonment pending deportation of successful asylum applicant on release from prison after conviction of an offence specified under the 2004 Order as a particularly serious crime.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘The giving of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Estoppel, Administrative

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.228500

Thoday v Thoday: CA 1964

The court discussed the difference between issue estoppel, and action estoppel: ‘The particular type of estoppel relied upon by the husband is estoppel per rem judicatam. This is a generic term which in modern law includes two species. The first species, which I will call ’cause of action estoppel,’ is that which prevents a party to an action from asserting or denying, as against the other party, the existence of a particular cause of action, the non-existence or 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, ie, judgment was given upon it, it is said to be merged in the judgment, or, for those who prefer Latin, transit in rem judicatam. If it was determined not to exist, the unsuccessful plaintiff can no longer assert that it does; he is estopped per rem judicatam. This is simply an application of the rule of public policy expressed in the Latin maxim ‘Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa.’ In this application of the maxim ‘causa’ bears its literal Latin meaning. The second species, which I will call ‘issue estoppel’, is an extension of the same rule of public policy. There are many causes of action which can only be established by proving that two or more different conditions are fulfilled. Such causes of action involve as many separate issues between the parties as there are conditions to be fulfilled by the plaintiff in order to establish his cause of action; and there may be cases where the fulfilment of an identical condition is a requirement common to two or more different causes of action. If in litigation upon one such cause of action any of such separate issues as to whether a particular condition has been fulfilled is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, either upon evidence or upon admission by a party to the litigation, neither party can, in subsequent litigation between one another upon any cause of action which depends upon the fulfilment of the identical condition, assert that the condition was fulfilled if the court in the first litigation determined that it was not, or deny that it was fulfilled if the court in the first litigation determined that it was.’

Judges:

Diplock LJ

Citations:

[1964] P 181, [1964] 1 All ER 341, [1964] 2 WLR 371, [1963] EWCA Civ 1219-1

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 . .
CitedBlackburn Chemicals Ltd v Bim Kemi Ab CA 10-Nov-2004
The parties entered into exclusive cross marketing agreements. The defendant resisted enforcement of the contract saying it was void under European law, being contrary to Article 81. The parties were alleged to have agreed to make cross purchases. . .
CitedHormel Foods Corporation v Antilles Landscape Investments NV ChD 24-Jan-2005
The claimant had alread challenged the validity of the defendant’s registered trade mark, but sought to do so now on grounds which could have been advanced in the earlier case. The claimant owned the trade mark ‘SPAM’ for canned meats, and the . .
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 . .
CitedFraser v HLMAD Limited CA 15-Jun-2006
The claimant had been dismissed as chief executive. He had made a claim in the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, but reserved the right to make further claims. The defendant argued that he was not estopped from pursuing those claims.
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 . .
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 . .
CitedBank of Scotland v Hussain and Another ChD 5-Nov-2010
The second defendant had, under the undue influence of the first defendant sold him her house at an undervalue. She also asserted non est factum. He then charged it to the claimant. The court was asked which innocent party should prevail. She said . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedDN (Rwanda), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 26-Feb-2020
Challenge to imprisonment pending deportation of successful asylum applicant on release from prison after conviction of an offence specified under the 2004 Order as a particularly serious crime.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘The giving of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Family

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.188233

Kok Hoong v Leong Cheong Kweng Mines Ltd: PC 1964

A clear public policy underlying a statute (for instance, the need to protect vulnerable persons dealing with moneylenders or landlords) prevents an estoppel arising: ‘To ask whether the law that confronts the estoppel can be seen to represent a social policy to which the Court must give effect in the interests of the public generally or some section of the public, despite any rules of evidence as between themselves that the parties may have created by their conduct or otherwise’

Judges:

Viscount Radcliffe

Citations:

[1964] AC 993

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 . .
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 . .
CitedYaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
CitedActionstrength Limited v International Glass Engineering In Gl En SpA and others HL 3-Apr-2003
Actionstrength agreed with Inglen to provide construction staff to build a factory for St-Gobain. Inglen failed to pay. Actionstrength claimed against for the amount due. Inglen went into liquidation. The claim was now against St-Gobain. The claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.180431

Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Ltd: CA 5 Jul 2007

The parties each had a charge over a property, and now disputed which had priority. The brewery appealed an order for rectification of the registers to reverse priority on the basis of an estoppel. The charge in their favour had been registered first, but the respondents charge was intended to secure finance to repay it in part, and the respondents said the apellants had agreed to give them priority even though at first no there had been no direct communication between them.
Held: The court upheld the judge’s findings on the facts. There had been passive acquiescence by the appellant and its appeal against the finding of an estoppel failed.

Judges:

Mummery, Sedley,Moore-Bick LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 684

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925, Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
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 . .
CitedYaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
CitedRepublic of India and Another v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Indian Grace) (No 2) HL 23-Oct-1997
When a action in rem against a ship was in fact parallel to an action in personam begun in India and awaiting a decision; an action was not to be allowed here.
Lord Steyn: ‘It is settled that an estoppel by convention may arise where parties to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Estoppel

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254462

Harris v Kent and Another: ChD 14 Mar 2007

The claimant said the defendant had failed to complete his promise to arrange for the issue of shares in a company in return for a loan. The defendant denied the contract.
Held: It had been agreed to treat the claimant as a fifty per cent participant, and an estoppel had been created as against the defendants.
As to damages: ‘The ‘but for the breach’ analysis called for by the application of the basic equitable principle requires the court to decide what would hypothetically have happened if, instead of committing the breach of trust, the Kents as trustees had in all respects complied with their fiduciary obligations. In this respect equity follows the law, in which for example damages are quantified by reference to the difference between the effect of the breach and the position which the claimant would have been in, had the defendant complied with his contract. ‘ Damages were awarded accordingly.

Judges:

Briggs J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 463 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWalsh v Lonsdale CA 1882
Lonsdale purported to grant to Walsh a seven year lease with rent payable in advance. The lease was not embodied in a deed, and when Walsh went into possession, an annual tenancy with rent payable in arrear was created. Walsh did not pay in advance, . .
CitedTarget Holdings Ltd v Redferns (A Firm) and Another HL 21-Jul-1995
The defendant solicitors had acted for a purchaser, Crowngate, which had agreed to buy a property from a company called Mirage for andpound;775,000. Crowngate had arranged however that the property would first be passed through a chain of two . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Trusts

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250019

Northstar Land Limited v Maitland Brooks Jacqueline Brooks: CA 14 Jun 2006

The parties’ solicitors were to complete the sale and purchase of land. The purchaser asked for an extension of time beyond the appointed hour to complete. The vendor’s solicitor responded that he would take his client’s instructions. The purchaser said this amounted to an estoppel despite the absence of any explicit promise that the time would be extended. The court was asked also as to whether a solicitor could make a payment from uncleared funds, and what was the latest time for completion in a day.
Held: No estoppel arose. The vendor’s solicitor had made no promise to provide an answer and was under no obligation to provide one. The judge had been correct to hold that completion had to take place by the close of the working day, and not at midnight, and that payment could only take place using cleared funds.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Smith LJ, Cresswell LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 756, Times 17-Jul-2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedLegione v Hateley 1982
(High Court of Australia) Purchasers of land were put on notice that unless they paid the price by 10th August the contract of sale would be rescinded. On 9th August the purchasers’ solicitor telephoned the vendor’s solicitors and spoke to the . .
CitedReardon Smith Line Ltd v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food HL 1963
Lord Devlin said: ‘If I employ a builder to repair my dwelling-house and he agrees to complete the work within six days or pay a penalty, that does not mean that he can keep me awake by working from midnight to midnight in order to finish the job. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel, Legal Professions

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242520