swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Estoppel - From: 1994 To: 1994
This page lists 4 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Matrix-Securities Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 334
1994
HL
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill, Lord Templeman
Taxes Management, Estoppel
The House acknowledged the validity of pre-transaction rulings. Such rulings were of assistance both to the respondents and to the taxpayer. Lord Templeman referred to "[t]he trick of circular, self-cancelling payments with matching receipts and payments".
1 Citers
In re Thomas Christy Limited [1994] 2 BCLC 527
1994
ChD
Mr Justice Jacob
Estoppel, Insurance
Findings by a Lloyds' disciplinary committee could not give rise to an issue estoppel in later court proceedings.
1 Citers
Walton v Walton Unreported, 14 April 1994
14 Apr 1994
CA
Hoffmann LJ
Estoppel
The mother had repeatedly promised to her son that he would inherit her farm in return for which he left school early and had worked for low wages. Her stock phrase to him had been: "You can't have more money and a farm one day". Held. Hoffmann LJ said that to claim an estoppel based upon a promise: "The promise must be unambiguous and must appear to have been intended to be taken seriously. Taken in its context, it must have been a promise which one might reasonably expect to be relied upon by the person to whom it was made." However: "in many cases of promises made in a family or social context, there is no intention to create an immediately binding contract. There are several reasons why the law is reluctant to assume that there was. One which is relevant in this case is that such promises are often subject to unspoken and ill-defined qualifications. Take for example the promise in this case. When it was first made, Mrs Walton did not know what the future might hold. Anything might happen which could make it quite inappropriate for the farm to go to the plaintiff.
But a contract, subject to the narrow doctrine of frustration, must be performed come what may. This is why Mr Jackson, who appeared for the plaintiff, has always accepted that Mrs Walton's promise could not have been intended to become a contract.
But none of this reasoning applies to equitable estoppel, because it does not look forward into the future and guess what might happen. It looks backwards from the moment when the promise falls due to be performed and asks whether, in the circumstances which have actually happened, it would be unconscionable for the promise not to be kept."
1 Citers
Matharu v Matharu Gazette, 29 June 1994; Independent, 18 May 1994; Times, 13 May 1994
29 Jun 1994
CA
Estoppel, Equity
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.