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: 1997 To: 1997
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
ÂKirin Amgen Inc v Boehringer Mannheim GmbH [1997] FSR 28
1997
Estoppel, International
1 Citers
Â
Godden v Merthyr Tydfil Housing Association [1997] EWCA Civ 780; (1997) 74 P & CR D1
15 Jan 1997
CA
Simon Brown LJ
Land, Contract, Estoppel
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."
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
Forrester v The Secretary Of State For The Environment And South Buckinghamshire District Council [1997] EWHC Admin 271; [1997] EWHC Admin 271
14 Mar 1997
Admn
His Honour Judge Rich
Planning, Estoppel
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..
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Â
Smith v Lawson [1997] EWCA Civ 1802
5 Jun 1997
CA
Estoppel
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Â
Hamilton v Weston [1997] EWCA Civ 2095
14 Jul 1997
CA
Estoppel
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Â
 Republic of India and Another v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Indian Grace) (No 2); HL 23-Oct-1997 - Gazette, 12 November 1997; Times, 23 October 1997; [1997] UKHL 40; [1997] 4 All ER 380; [1997] 3 WLR 818; [1998] AC 878
Â
William John Perry Orgee v William John Neil Orgee [1997] EWCA Civ 2650
5 Nov 1997
CA
Hirst, Swinton Thomas and Mantell LJJ
Estoppel, Estoppel
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."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
William John Perry Orgee v William John Neil Orgee [1997] EWCA Civ 2650
5 Nov 1997
CA
Hirst, Swinton Thomas and Mantell LJJ
Estoppel, Estoppel
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."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
 Bell and others v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd; CA 11-Dec-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 2962; [1997] EG 174; [1998] 1 EGLR 69; [1998] 17 EG 144; [1998] L & TR 1
Â