Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Ltd: CA 5 Jul 2007

The parties each had a charge over a property, and now disputed which had priority. The brewery appealed an order for rectification of the registers to reverse priority on the basis of an estoppel. The charge in their favour had been registered first, but the respondents charge was intended to secure finance to repay it in part, and the respondents said the apellants had agreed to give them priority even though at first no there had been no direct communication between them.
Held: The court upheld the judge’s findings on the facts. There had been passive acquiescence by the appellant and its appeal against the finding of an estoppel failed.
Mummery, Sedley,Moore-Bick LJJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 684
Land Registration Act 1925, Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2
England and Wales
CitedTaylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD 1981
The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .
CitedAmalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd (in Liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd CA 1982
The court explained the nature of an estoppel by convention.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘The doctrine of estoppel is one of the most flexible and useful in the armoury of the law. But it has become overloaded with cases. That is why I have not gone . .
CitedYaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
CitedRepublic of India and Another v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Indian Grace) (No 2) HL 23-Oct-1997
When a action in rem against a ship was in fact parallel to an action in personam begun in India and awaiting a decision; an action was not to be allowed here.
Lord Steyn: ‘It is settled that an estoppel by convention may arise where parties to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 February 2021; Ref: scu.254462