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: 2003 To: 2003
This page lists 14 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Dexter Ltd v Vlieland-Boddy [2003] EWCA Civ 14
2003
CA
Clarke LJ, Scott Baker LJ
Estoppel, Contract, Litigation Practice
The court discussed the significance of Johnson v Gore Wood. Clarke LJ: "The principles to be derived from the authorities, of which by far the most important is Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1, can be summarised as follows:
i) Where A has brought an action against B, a later action against B or C may be struck out where the second action is an abuse of process.
ii) A later action against B is much more likely to be held to be an abuse of process than a later action against C.
iii) The burden of establishing abuse of process is on B or C or as the case may be.
iv) It is wrong to hold that because a matter could have been raised in earlier proceedings it should have been, so as to render the raising of it in later proceedings necessarily abusive.
v) The question in every case is whether, applying a broad merits based approach, A's conduct is in all the circumstances an abuse of process.
vi) The court will rarely find that the later action is an abuse of process unless the later action involves unjust harassment or oppression of B or C."
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Latifi v Colherne Court Freehold Limited [2003] 1 EGLR 78
2003
Cooke J
Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel
Estoppel and waiver are open to the recipient of a notice (including a counter-notice) under 1993 Act, in the same way as they are open to the recipient of a notice (or indeed, a counter-notice) under Part II of the 1954 Act.
1 Citers
Good Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport S A [2003] EWHC 10 (Comm)
10 Jan 2003
ComC
Estoppel, Limitation
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Wilson v Truelove Times, 21 February 2003; Gazette, 13 March 2003; Gazette, 10 April 2003; [2003] EWHC 750 (Ch); [2003] 23 EG 136; [2003] 2 EGLR 63; [2003] 10 EG 164; [2003] WTLR 609
25 Mar 2003
ChD
Simon Berry QC
Land, Equity, Estoppel
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 the original purchase. The defendants sought assistance in equity under an estoppel by convention. The fact that the defendant's right arose under statute did not prevent equity overriding that right. To establish an estoppel generally it was necessary to identify some unconscionable conduct on the part of the defendant. None was shown here. To establish an estoppel by convention, there was no requirement for unconscionable behaviour, but it was necessary to show some common mistake as to the meaning of the contract, followed by a course of conduct establishing reliance upon that conventional interpretation. That was absent here. The parties were merely mistaken.
Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 9(2)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Lissimore v Downing [2003] EWHC B1 (Ch); [2003] 2 FLR 308; [2003] Fam Law 566
31 Mar 2003
ChD
Norris QC J
Trusts, Estoppel
The claimant asserted an estoppel in land registered in the name of the defendant. Held: Unspecific statements made by the defendant that "she would never want for anything", or that "he would take care of her", or that "he had looked after his other girlfriends and she would not be different" did not found a proprietary estoppel: "Such statements do not on their face relate to any specific property, they plainly do not amount to a representation which binds the whole of Mr Downing's property, and they are not expressed in terms which enable any objective assessment to be made of what is being promised. In this last respect they are to be contrasted with statements made to unpaid or underpaid workers or business partners, encouraged to work on because they would be 'treated right', and for whom a commensurate reward could be objectively assessed."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Actionstrength Limited v International Glass Engineering In Gl En SpA and others [2003] UKHL 17; Times, 04 April 2003; [2003] 2 AC 541; [2003] 2 WLR 1060; [2003] 1 CLC 1003; [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 331; [2003] 2 All ER 615; [2003] BLR 207; 88 Con LR 208
3 Apr 2003
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Woolf, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Contract, Estoppel
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 was based on an alleged oral guarantee. When the defendant pleaded the Statute of Frauds, the claimant alleged an estoppel, saying the defendant had urged it to continue to supply workers. Held: Some recognisable structural framework must be established before recourse could be had to the underlying idea of unconscionable conduct. It needed to be shown that Actionstrength assumed that St-Gobain would honour the guarantee; that that assumption was induced or encouraged by St-Gobain; and that Actionstrength relied on that assumption. They had not established all these elements. These factors could not all be found in the pleadings. The only assurance given to Actionstrength was the promise itself. In order to be estopped from invoking the statute there must be something more, such as some additional encouragement, inducement or assurance. In addition to the promise there must be some influence exerted by St-Gobain on Actionstrength to lead it to assume that the promise would be honoured. However there was no suggestion made that St-Gobain said or did anything to lead Actionstrength to assume that St-Gobain would not stand on its rights.
The purpose of the Statute was, said Lord Hoffmann: "precisely to avoid the need to decide which side was telling the truth about whether or not an oral promise had been made and exactly what had been promised." and "It is quite true . . that the system of civil procedure in 1677 was not very well adapted to discovering the truth. For one thing, the parties to the action were not competent witnesses. But the question of whether the Act should be preserved in its application to guarantees was considered in 1953 by the Law Reform Committee (First Report, Statute of Frauds and Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 (Cmd 8809)) and the recommendation of a very strong committee was to keep it."
Lord Bingham said that section 4 was enacted "to address a mischief facilitated, it seems, by the procedural deficiencies of the day . . the calling of perjured evidence to prove spurious agreements said to have been made orally. The solution applied to the five classes of contract specified in section 4 was to require, as a condition of enforceability, some written memorandum or note of the agreement signed by the party to be charged under the agreement or his authorised agent"
Statute of Frauds 1677 4
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
Confetti Records (A Firm), Fundamental Records, Andrew Alcee v Warner Music UK Ltd (Trading As East West Records) [2003] EWCh 1274 (Ch); Times, 12 June 2003
23 May 2003
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison
Contract, Media, Intellectual Property, Estoppel
An agreement was made for the assignment of the copyright in a music track, but it remained 'subject to contract'. The assignor later sought to resile from the assignment. Held: It is standard practice in the music licensing business for a licensee and a licensor to enter into a deal memo followed by a long form contract, but the deal memo's and contract are not of a standard form. The circumstances are not so strong and exceptional as to displace the conventional meaning of the phrase "subject to contract". The burden was on the Defendant to establish any custom or usage within the industry to the effect that "subject to contract" does not bear the meaning it bears in normal legal usage. That burden was not discharged. The fact that a party to an agreement "subject to contract" acts on the faith of that agreement does not raise any estoppel as to the existence of a binding contract. In this case there had been representations and acts in reliance upon those expectations. An estoppel was created, and a contract concluded. There was accordingly no action for copyright infringement.
The claimant also sought damages for the derogatory treatment of his work. That was claimable only if his reputation was damaged. The court had the faintly surreal experience of three gentlemen in horsehair wigs examining the meaning of such phrases as "mish mish man" and "shizzle (or sizzle) my nizzle", but there was no evidence of the author's reputation or damage to it.
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 80 97(2)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Gonthier and Another v Orange Contract Scaffolding Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 873
25 Jun 2003
CA
Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Kay And Mr Justice Lindsay
Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel
The question of a proprietary estoppel as between landlord and tenant arose. An agreement had been reached subject to contract for the grant of a lease, with an option to purchase. The tenant was allowed into possession before the documentation was prepared, and to commece works of repair. Eventually the proposed lease did not include an option. In resisting a later action for possession, the prospective tenant produced inflated invoices. The landowner resisted the claim for an estoppel saying that the tenant, seeking an equitable remedy, had not come to court with clean hands. Held: It was the proposed tenant's solicitors who themselves made the correspondence subject to contract.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Century SA (UK) Ltd v Clibbery and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 1374
17 Jul 2003
CA
Estoppel, Equity
The major shareholder in the claimant company allowed the defendant and her mother to occupy a substantial house owned by the company. When possession was sought, the defendant argued that it had been promised to her that she could live there for as long as she wished. The defendant now asserted a proprietary estoppel, and appealed summary judgment against her. Held: The matter should go to full trial.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Parker v Parker [2003] EWHC 1846 (Ch)
24 Jul 2003
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison
Estoppel, Housing
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 notice, but all the circumstances of the present case pointed toward the inference of a licence. In this case a easonable period of notice might extend to years.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Xtralite (Rooflights) Ltd v Hartington Conway Ltd; ChD 31-Jul-2003 - Times, 01 October 2003; Gazette, 01 October 2003
Grundy v Ottey; CA 31-Jul-2003 - [2003] EWCA Civ 1176; [2003] WTLR 1253
Antigua Public Utilities Authority v Malcolm Alphonso Edwards 35 of 2002; [2003] UKPC 64
2 Oct 2003
PC
Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Sir Christopher Staughton
Commonwealth, Employment, Estoppel
PC (Antigua and Barbuda) Upon the transfer of utilities into private companies controlled by the government, the respondent's employment was also to be transferred. The issue concerned his new contract terms. The respondent was employed on a fixed term contract. Under that contract he was to be paid a gratuity at the end of the term. The new contract was permanent with no gratuity or pension payable. Held: Vested rights had been promised to be protected, but no estaoppel could be established. The applicant's alteration of his retirement date by a few weeks could not give rise to one. The evidence suggested that Mr Edward's position was treated as special, and a letter was more likely to have been sent than not. He was entitled to a pension, though on a different basis than the award appealed.
1 Cites
[ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
Beale v Harvey [2003] EWCA Civ 1883; [2004] 2 P&CR 18
28 Nov 2003
CA
Peter Gibson LJ
Land, Registered Land, Estoppel
Land had been divided into three lots on its development, but the site plan did not match the line of a fence actually erected. Held: The court was not bound by the Watcham case, and would not follow it to allow reference to the later behaviour of parties in interpreting a deed. The court related the conveyance plan to the features on the ground and concluded that, on the facts, the dominant description of the boundary of the property conveyed was red edging in a single straight line on the plan.
The judge had been incorrect in not allowing the defendant to plead an estoppel. However there had been insufficient detriment suffered to establish an estoppel, and the defence failed. The appeal was dismissed.
Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
