Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Downderry Construction Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Another [2002] EWHC 2 (Admin)
11 Jan 2002
Admn
Richards J
Planning, Administrative, Estoppel
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.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 191 192
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Aker Oil and Gas Technology UK Plc v Sovereign Corporate Limited [2002] EWHC 104 (Technology)
15 Jan 2002
TCC
His Honour Judge Richard Havery Q.C.
Contract, Estoppel
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.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Ace Insurance Sa-Nv v Surendranath Seechurn [2002] EWCA Civ 67; [2002] 2 Lloyds LR 390
6 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Thorpe And Lord Justice Keene
Limitation, Personal Injury, Insurance, Estoppel
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 if proceedings were issued whilst negotiations were under way. The insurers later claimed that his claim was out of time. He asserted that they were estopped from making that assertion. The insurance company appealed a finding against them. Held: An estoppel would require a clear promise with specific regard to the limitation period. It was unnecessary to explore the several different forms of estoppel. Hughes was to apply. There was to be shown a clear representation. It must be precise and unambiguous. The claimants interpretation of what was happening did not affect the objective view of the words used. The offer made was conditional upon the claimant submitting to further examination in any event, which he had not done. No estoppel was established.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and another v Sherwood and another Gazette, 27 February 2002; Times, 04 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 229
18 Feb 2002
CA
Peter Gibson, Chadwick, Longmore LLJ
Local Government, Licensing, Nuisance, Estoppel
The applicants had constructed kiosks on the highway with permission from the local authority under the 1990 Act. They also had licences under the 1980 act to operate as street traders. The authority later complained that the sales from the structures were not street sales, and the licences were not valid. Held: The licensing system was intended to supplement the law of nuisance, by proscribing street trading falling short of nuisance. Trading from such structures was not street trading, and was not regulated under the 1990 Act. It was not appropriate to decide the question of whether an offence had occurred, by looking at tiny questions of when in time the sales took place. There was no promise to be implied allowing the traders a licence, or that they should be granted a lease. Nevertheless, there was an estoppel against the local authority which had represented that a licence would continue for 22 years, and it would be held to it.
London Local Authorities Act 1990 21(1) - Highways Act 1980 Part VIIA
[ Bailii ]

 
 Jennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed; CA 22-Feb-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 159; [2003] 1 P & CR 100; [2003] 1 FCR 501
 
Regina (Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd) v East Sussex County Council Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd v Same Times, 05 March 2002; [2002] UKHL 8; [2003] 1 WLR 348; [2002] 4 All ER 58; [2002] 10 EGCS 158; [2003] 1 P & CR 5; [2002] JPL 821; [2002] NPC 32
28 Feb 2002
HL
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Scott of Foscote
Planning, Estoppel, Human Rights
The respondent company had asserted that the local authority had made a determination of the issue of whether electricity could be generated on a waste treatment site without further planning permission. The council said that without a formal planning application, no determination had been made. Held: The procedure of making a determination had important consequences. It was one stage of a statutory process, which required for several reasons that there first should be a planning application. Nor, here was there any material upon which as estoppel could be raised against the council. Estoppels may bind individuals, where it would unconscionable for them to deny what they had represented or agreed. But those private law concepts should not be extended into the public law of planning control, which bound everyone. Attempts to reconcile the law of estoppel in private and public law contexts were unsatisfactory.
Lord Hoffmann: "Public law can also take into account the hierarchy of individual rights which exist under the Human Rights Act 1998, so that, for example, the individual's right to a home is accorded a high degree of protection … while ordinary property rights are in general far more limited by considerations of public interest . . ."
Town and Country Planning Act 1964 64 - Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (SI 1988 No 1813)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Rothschild Asset Management Limited v Ako Times, 02 April 2002; Gazette, 25 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 236; [2002] 2 All ER 693; [2002] ICR 899; [2002] IRLR 348
1 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, And, Lord Justice Dyson
Discrimination, Estoppel
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 chairman, having received a letter withdrawing the case, had entered the decision without hearing from either party, or investigating any evidence. The applicant had relied upon an out of date text book, understanding that she would be able to re-apply. Held: Cause of action estoppel applied where the list of issues in the two actions were identical. Despite the Lennon case, the court could look behind a decision to examine the circumstances in which it had been made. Employment Tribunals differed on this issue from other courts, in not making a distinction between orders dismissing case, and discontinuances. Discontinuance does not release or discharge the cause of action, and in employment tribunal cases the court could look behind the order to see if that was the case.
Employment Tribunals (Constitution etc) Regulations 1993 13(2)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Barings Plc and Another v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and others; ChD 20-Mar-2002 - [2002] EWHC 461 (Ch)
 
Flanagan and Another v South Bucks District Council Gazette, 20 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 690; [2002] 1 WLR 2601
16 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Keene and Mr Justice Sumner
Planning, Local Government, Estoppel
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.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Woodland-Ferrari v UCL Group Retirement Benefits Scheme Times, 17 July 2002
5 Jul 2002
ChD
Mr Justice Ferris
Insolvency, Estoppel
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.
Insolvency Act 1986 281(1) 281(3)


 
 Keelwalk Properties Ltd v Betty Waller and Another; CA 30-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1076; [2002] 3 EGLR 79
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.