swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
Estoppel - From: 1990 To: 1990
This page lists 6 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Â
 Thrasyvoulou v Secretary of State for the Environment; HL 1990 - [1990] 2 AC 273
Â
Express Newspapers v News (UK) plc [1990] 1 WLR 1320; Times, 01 January 1990; [1990] FSR 359; [1990] Ch D 1320
1990
Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson V-C
Estoppel, Intellectual Property
If summary judgment is given to one party on his claim, it must also be given on a counterclaim made on the same basis by the defendant. The principle that a party to litigation cannot "approbate and reprobate" (or “blow hot and cold”) can curtail a party’s theoretical freedom to plead wholly inconsistent cases as alternatives. It is imported into English law from Scotland, and although it covers much the same ground as elective waiver and waiver by estoppel, it may be rather more flexible.
As to the Lion Laboratories case: "In my judgment, that decision has no application to the present case. Where that type of defence is put forward it permits the publication of secret information which it is in the public interest should be known. It does not apply to information of the kind which it may be of interest to the public to know. Moreover, the basis of the defence being that the public needs to know, the whole basis for the defence goes once such information has been disclosed to all, i.e. by one paper. There is no further requirement of public interest that another paper should be able to repeat the revelation of that information."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
Crown Estates Commissioners v Dorset County Council [1990] Ch 297
1990
Millett
Estoppel, Litigation Practice
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.
1 Citers
Â
Youell v Bland Welch and Co Ltd ('The Superhulls Cover-Case) (No 2) [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 431
1990
QBD
Estoppel
In estoppel it is necessary for there to have been an unequivocal representation of fact by words or conduct: “A party can represent that he will not enforce a specific legal right by words or conduct. He can say so expressly - this of course he can only do if he is aware of the right. Alternatively he can adopt a course of conduct which is inconsistent with the exercise of that right. Such a course of conduct will only constitute a representation that he will not exercise the right if the circumstances are such to suggest either that he was aware of the right when he embarked on the course of conduct inconsistent with it or that he was content to abandon any rights he might enjoy which were inconsistent with that course of conduct.”
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
 Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset; HL 29-Mar-1990 - [1991] 1 AC 107; [1990] 2 WLR 867; [1990] 1 All ER 1111; [1990] UKHL 4; [1990] UKHL 14
Â
In re C and M Ashberg Times, 17 July 1990
17 Jul 1990
Estoppel
An estoppel by representation could not be used to establish satisfaction of a stautory condition.
1 Citers
Â
