Preedy and Another v Dunne and Others: CA 21 Jul 2016

New claim for estoppel on appeal

The appellants/defendants alleged, but failed to establish, a proprietary estoppel. On appeal, they seek to construe out of the judge’s findings of fact, which they do not for the most part challenge, a new case based on estoppel by convention. The respondent/claimant trustees, of course, complain that the new case is not open to the appellants, because the trial would have been conducted quite differently if they had known that to have been the appellants’ case. In any event, the respondent trustees say that the facts found by the judge do not support the newly alleged estoppel by convention.

Longmore, Vos, King LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 805
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromPreedy and Another v Dunne and Others ChD 2-Oct-2015
The claimant freeholders sought possession of a public house against the defendants who operated a restaurant and pub business, and asserted a proprietary estoppel. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.567722

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd: KBD 1947

Promissory Estoppel Created

The plaintiff leased a block a flats to the defendant in 1939, at an annual rental of pounds 2500. High Trees had difficulty in filling the flats because of the war, and the parties agreed in writing in 1940 to reduce the rental to a half. No time period for the reduction was set. High Trees paid the reduced rent for five years and by late 1945, the flats were full. Central London sought to re-instate the full rent from the second half of 1945, as the war ended.
Held: The 1940 agreement was intended to accommodate the peculiar circumstances brought about by war and so lasted only as long as the war. With the flats full by 1945, and now that the war had ended, the variation no longer applied. Central London was now entitled to the full rental. (Obiter) An action for arrears for the years 1940-45 would have failed. The plaintiff was subject to a promissory estoppel. It had made a promise. The defendant had relied upon that promise, and despite the absence of consideration, it would have been unjust to have allowed such a claim. This was an estoppel, a rule of evidence, preventing an ‘unjust departure by a party from an assumption of fact which he has caused another party to adopt or accept for the purpose of their legal relations’.
Denning J said: ‘where parties enter into an arrangement which is intended to create legal relations between them and in pursuance of such arrangement one party makes a promise to the other which he knows will be acted on and which is in fact acted on by the promissee, the court will treat the promise as binding on the promisor to the extent that it will not allow him to act inconsistently with it even although the promise may not be supported by consideration in the strict sense and the effect of the arrangement made is to vary the terms of a contract under seal by one of less value.’

Denning J
[1947] 1 KB 130, [1956] 1 All ER 256, [1947] LJR 77, [1947] 175 LT 332, [1947] 62 TLR 557
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedHughes v Metropolitan Railway Co HL 1877
A notice to repair had been served by the landlord on the tenant. The tenant wrote offering to buy the premises and proposed deferring the commencement of repairs until the landlord responded. The landlord replied by letter asking the price. It was . .
CitedBirmingham and District Land Co v London and North Western Railway CA 1886
The court considered the creation of an estoppel: Cotton LJ: ‘. . what passed did not make a new agreement, but . . what took place . . raised an equity against him.’
Bowen LJ said: ‘The truth is that the proposition is wider than cases of . .

Cited by:
CitedDun and Bradstreet Software Services (England) Ltd; Dun and Bradstreet Software Services Ltd v Provident Mutual Life Assurance Association and General Accident Linked Life Assurance CA 9-Jun-1997
Break clauses had been exercised on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant landlords appealed a decision upholding the notices. A penalty rent had been sought.
Held: There had been no sufficient agency established to validate the notice. The . .
ExplainedCombe v Combe CA 1951
The defendant husband had promised his wife to allow her andpound;100 a year free of tax, without his wife furnishing any consideration for the promise. On his failing to pay, she sued on the promise.
Held: Her claim failed. The court declined . .
CitedSmith v Lawson CA 5-Jun-1997
. .
CitedThe Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Ayres and Grew ChD 3-Apr-2007
The defendants argued that they were not liable as guarantors under an Authorised Guarantee Agreement for a lease when the assignee tenant had become insolvent.
Held: The guarantors were liable provided that the extent of the claim did not . .
CitedCollier v P and M J Wright (Holdings) Ltd CA 14-Dec-2007
Agreement for payment by joint debtor not contract
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order to set aside a statutory demand. He said that he had compromised a claim by the creditors. He argued for an extension to the Rule in Pinnel’s case, so that where a debtor agrees to pay part of a . .
CitedD and C Builders Ltd v Rees CA 1966
The plaintiff builders had been chasing payment of their undisputed invoice. Knowing that the builders were in financial difficulties, the defendant offered rather less, saying that if it was not accepted, she would pay nothing. She made the payment . .
CitedWestern Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.188168

Warren and Another v Burns: QBD 13 Nov 2014

The boxing manager and boxer each said that the other owed him money.
Held: The contract entitled the claimant to take some share of the boxers earnings but as part of the overall management fee, but as a part of the overall sum and at a share to be apprtioned between the managers. On the other hand the claimant had not waived payment by failing to call for payment in earlier years. In summary, unpaid comission remained payable, the balance of any payment for one particular fight was due from a company now in liquidation (not Mr Warren), but no sum was payable in respect of the promoter agreement.

Knowles CBE J
[2014] EWHC 3671 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAllied Marine Ltd v Vale do Rio Doce SA (The Leonidas D) CA 1985
One party sought to construct an agreement to abandon an ongoing, if stalled, arbitration out of mere silence.
Held: Robert Goff LJ said that silence will not normally amount to acceptance of an offer since acceptance cannot be inferred from . .
CitedLiberty Insurance Pte Ltd and Another v Argo Systems Fze CA 21-Dec-2011
Aikens LJ said that the waiver of a contractual right by election or by estoppel requires ‘that the person who is alleged to have ‘waived’ the relevant contractual right has made an unequivocal representation, by words or conduct, that he does not, . .
CitedBehzadi v Shaftsbury Hotels CA 1992
The court must distinguish between an open contract such as Green v. Sevin where no date for completion is fixed by the contract and the more normal case where a completion date is fixed but time is not of the essence of the date specified. In the . .
CitedDalkia Utilities Services Plc v Celtech International Ltd ComC 27-Jan-2006
The Court was asked to decide (i) which, if either, of the two parties to a 15 year agreement lawfully terminated it; (ii) whether, if one of them did so, it was by giving notice under a contractual termination clause or by way of acceptance of the . .
CitedValilas v Januzaj CA 8-Apr-2014
The parties, dentist working together, disputed the contract between them.
Held: Floyd LJ described the assessment to be made when deciding if a contract had been breached: ‘Whether a breach or threatened breach does give rise to a right to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.538724

Dillwyn v Llewelyn: ChD 12 Jul 1862

The father thought he had given his younger son land in Wales, in signing a memorandum and presenting it to him ‘for the purpose of furnishing himself with a dwelling-house’. The memorandum was not by deed. The son built his home on the land. When the father died, the elder son disputed his brother’s title.
Held: The Master of the Rolls said younger son was entitled to a life interest. Lord Westbury LC allowed the younger son’s appeal, saying: ‘About the rules of the Court there can be no controversy. A voluntary agreement will not be completed or assisted by a Court of Equity, in cases of mere gift. If anything be wanting to complete the title of the donee, a Court of Equity will not assist him in obtaining it; for a mere donee can have no right to claim more than he has received. But the subsequent acts of the donor may give the donee that right or ground of claim which he did not acquire from the original gift . . so if A puts B in possession of a piece of land, and tells him, ‘I give it to you that you may build a house on it,’ and B on the strength of that promise, with the knowledge of A, expends a large sum of money in building a house accordingly, I cannot doubt that the donee acquires a right from the subsequent transaction to call on the donor to perform that contract and complete the imperfect donation which was made. The case is somewhat analogous to that of verbal agreement not binding originally for the want of the memorandum in writing signed by the party to be charged, but which becomes binding by virtue of the subsequent part performance.’ The Lord Chancellor awarded the younger son the fee simple since ‘no one builds a house for his own life only.’

The Lord Chancellor Lord Westbury
[1862] EWHC Ch J67, [1862] 45 ER 1284, (1862) 4 De GF and J 517, [1862] EngR 908, (1862) 4 De G F and J 517, (1862) 45 ER 1285
Bailii, Commonlii
Cited by:
CitedYeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Equity, Estoppel

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.245427

Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe: HL 30 Jul 2008

The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding that Mrs Lisle-Mainwaring’s behaviour in repudiating, and seeking an improvement on, the core financial terms of the second agreement was unconscionable and sufficient to justify the creation of a ‘proprietary estoppel equity’. . But to leap from there to a conclusion that a proprietary estoppel case was made out was not justified.
Even without attempting to vary the terms of the agreement, the company could not have been obliged to go ahead: ‘Proprietary estoppel requires, in my opinion, clarity as to what it is that the object of the estoppel is to be estopped from denying, or asserting, and clarity as to the interest in the property in question that that denial, or assertion, would otherwise defeat. If these requirements are not recognised, proprietary estoppel will lose contact with its roots and risk becoming unprincipled and therefore unpredictable, if it has not already become so. ‘ The claimant was entitled to a quantum meruit payment for his services, and te value of that should represent the extent of the unjust enrichment obtained by the plaintiff.

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance
[2008] UKHL 55, [2008] 35 EG 142, [2008] 31 EG 88, [2008] WTLR 1461, [2008] 1 WLR 1752
Bailii, Times, HL
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 19892
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromYeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe CA 31-Jul-2006
The defendants orally agreed to sell the claimant a block of flats for andpound;12 million if he first obtained planning permission for it on terms as to a sharing of subsequent development profits. The claimant spent over andpound;100,000 and . .
At First InstanceYeoman’s Row Management Ltd v London Rent Assessment Committee Chairman QBD 25-Feb-2005
The parties agreed in principle that there would be an application for planning permission, and that if granted the land would be bought and the profits shared. Considerable work was undertaken and permission achieved, but the seller then sought to . .
CitedLaird v Birkenhead Railway Co 22-Nov-1859
The plaintiff applied to the defendant railway company for permission to construct and use a private branch line connecting with the railway company’s main line. Agreement was reached for the plaintiff to do so ‘on reasonable terms, which were to be . .
CitedAttorney General of Hong Kong v Humphreys Estate (Queen’s Gardens) Ltd PC 1987
An agreement in principle was marked ‘subject to contract’. The Government would acquire some flats owned the plaintiff Group of companies in return for the Government granting, inter alia, a lease to the Group of some Crown lands. The Government . .
CitedMuschinski v Dodds 1985
(High Court of Australia) The idea of conscience is too vague a notion to found the principles of equity, it would open the door to ‘idiosyncratic notions of fairness and justice’ and ‘That property was acquired, in pursuance of the consensual . .
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 . .
CitedRamsden v Dyson HL 1866
The Vice-Chancellor had held that two tenants of Sir John Ramsden, the owner of a large estate near Huddersfield, were entitled to long leases of plots on the estate. They ostensibly held the plots as tenants at will only, but they had spent their . .
CitedPlimmer v Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City of Wellington PC 1884
(New Zealand) Mr Plimmer had occupied land under a revocable licence from the Corporation’s predecessor-in-title and at their request had made extensive improvements to it. He sought compensation when the land was to be vested in the defendant. The . .
CitedInwards v Baker CA 13-Jan-1965
An indulgent father had encouraged his son to build a bungalow on his, the father’s, land. The son had done so in the expectation, encouraged by the father, that he would be permitted to remain in occupation.
Held: The court formulated the . .
CitedHoliday Inns Inc v Broadhead 1974
The parties negotiated for a lease, but never signed a contract. The plaintiff expended considerable sums to try to get planning, and once acquired it sought to buy the land, and claimed that Mr Broadhead had taken an unconscionable advantage, . .
CitedCrabb v Arun District Council CA 23-Jul-1975
The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .
CitedBritish Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd 1983
An ‘if contract’ is where one party makes an offer capable of acceptance on the basis that ‘if you do this for us, we will do that for you’. Often used in the construction industry.
Goff J said: ‘the question whether . . any contract has come . .
CitedPallant v Morgan ChD 1952
The agents of two neighbouring landowners orally agreed in the auction room that the plaintiff’s agent would refrain from bidding at auction and that the defendant, if his agent’s bid was successful, would divide the land according to an agreed . .
CitedTime Products Ltd v Combined English Stores 2-Dec-1974
The plaintiff and the defendant were each interested in buying a property and had agreed that one of them would make an offer, the other refraining from doing so, and that if the offer were to be accepted the purchaser would deal with the property . .
CitedWalton Stores (Interstate) Limited v Maher 1988
(High Court of Australia) It would be unconscionable for a party to stand by in silence when it must have known that the other party was proceeding on an assumption that they had a binding agreement. . .
CitedPridean Limited v Forest Taverns Limited; Hipwell and Marshall CA 28-Nov-1996
The claimant owned a public house. It set out with the defendant to to acquire the premises or to take a lease of them. The defendant went into occupation, and carried out works. Negotiations continued, but broke down over the form of protection to . .
CitedLondon and Regional Investments Ltd v TBI Plc and Others CA 22-Mar-2002
TBI was a property investor and developer with several subsidiaries. It agreed to sell some to London and Regional. The agreement provided for the vendor and the purchaser to use reasonable endeavours to agree the terms of a joint venture agreement . .
CitedBanner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments and Another CA 10-Feb-2000
Competing building companies agreed not to bid against each other for the purchase of land. One proceeded and the other asserted that the land was then held on trust for the two parties as a joint venture.
Held: Although there was no formal . .
CitedKilcarne Holdings Ltd v Targetfollow (Birmingham) Ltd and Another CA 16-Nov-2005
The defendant had brought in the claimant in order to assist in satisfying its own obligations under a lease. The joint venture was not recorded in a formal agreement. The appellant asserted that a constructive trust had been created. The judge had . .
CitedDann v Spurrier 1802
The tenant had carried out improvements to the property. It was uncertain whether the length of the term (7, 14 or 21 years) was at the option of the lessee alone.
Held: The case was decided on construction of the lease. Lord Eldon made it . .
CitedRochdale Canal Company v King 1853
Sir John Romilly MR said: ‘The principle on which the Defendants rely is one often recognised by this Court, namely, that if one man stand by and encourage another, though but passively, to lay out money, under an erroneous opinion of title, or . .
CitedDillwyn v Llewelyn ChD 12-Jul-1862
The father thought he had given his younger son land in Wales, in signing a memorandum and presenting it to him ‘for the purpose of furnishing himself with a dwelling-house’. The memorandum was not by deed. The son built his home on the land. When . .
CitedRegina (Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd) v East Sussex County Council Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd v Same HL 28-Feb-2002
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 . .
CitedWillmott v Barber ChD 19-Jun-1880
In 1869 Barber granted a 99-year lease of three acres of land in east London, subject to a covenant against assignment or sub-letting without consent. In 1874, in breach of covenant, he sub-let one acre on an annual tenancy to Willmott (who owned a . .
CitedPascoe v Turner CA 1-Dec-1978
The defendant had been assured by the plaintiff that ‘the house is yours and everything in it.’ In reliance on that assurance she carried out improvements to the house. Although the improvements were modest, their cost represented a large part of . .
CitedGrundy v Ottey CA 31-Jul-2003
The deceased left his estate within a discretionary trust. The claimant sought to assert an interest in it, claiming an estoppel and, under the 1975 Act, as his partner. They had lived together for four years. She had been dependent upon him . .
CitedLissimore v Downing ChD 31-Mar-2003
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 . .
CitedWindeler v Whitehall 1990
The plaintiff and defendant lived together but were not married. The plaintiff spent some of a legacy she received on living expenses and supervised minor building works to the family home. She claimed an interest in it.
Held: Millett J said: . .
CitedJennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed CA 22-Feb-2002
The claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel against the respondents. He had worked for the deceased over many years, for little payment, and doing more and more for her. Though he still worked full time at first, he came to spend nights at the . .
CitedGillett v Holt and Another ChD 18-Jun-1998
To establish a proprietary estoppel against the testator’s promise to leave items in his will, some overt act over and above a promise, and reliance upon that promise, must be shown in order to displace the testator’s right to change his will. . .
CitedGillett v Holt and Another CA 23-Mar-2000
Repeated Assurances Created Equitable Estoppel
Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
CitedJT Developments v Quinn and Another CA 1990
The plaintiff told the defendant it was willing to grant a lease on the same terms as those contained in a new tenancy that the plaintiff had recently granted to the tenant of a nearby shop, also owned by the plaintiff. The defendant carried out . .
CitedBank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd and Another v Akindele CA 22-Jun-2000
The test of whether a person who received funds held them on constructive trust, was not whether he himself was dishonest, but rather whether he had knowledge of circumstances which made it unconscionable to hold on to the money received. In respect . .

Cited by:
CitedBrightlingsea Haven Ltd and Another v Morris and others QBD 30-Oct-2008
The caravan park operated under planning consents requiring the caravans to be occupied only during certain months. The defendants had bought their mobile homes from the claimants to occupy full time, and said that the claimants knew of this. The . .
CitedSt Pancras and Humanist Housing Association Ltd v Leonard CA 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought possession of a garage. The defendant claimed adverse possession.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against an order for possession failed. The defendant had attended a meeting where his behaviour had allowed other parties to . .
CitedBrighton and Hove City Council v Audus ChD 26-Feb-2009
The claimant was the proprietor of a fourth legal charge on a title. It sought a declaration that a second charge in favour of the defendant was void as a clog on the proprietor’s equity of redemption. An advance secured by a first charge, also in . .
CitedClarke and Another v Corless and Another ChD 8-Jul-2009
The parties disputed whether one could retain for his own benefit land on an estate reserved for an estate road. A trust was claimed under Pallant saying that the parties had made an informal agreement before the property was purchased.
Held: . .
CitedThorner v Major and others HL 25-Mar-2009
The deceased had made a will including a gift to the claimant, but had then revoked the will. The claimant asserted that an estoppel had been created in his favour over a farm, and that the defendant administrators of the promisor’s estate held it . .
CitedClarke and Another v Corless and Another CA 31-Mar-2010
The claimants appealed against refusal of a declaration that a neighbouring access road and land was held on a constructive trust. They said that an agreement bewteeen the parties should have been effective to impose a trust on the defendants. The . .
CitedGill v Woodall and Others ChD 5-Oct-2009
The claimant challenged her late mother’s will which had left the entire estate to a charity. She asserted lack of knowledge and approval and coercion, and also an estoppel. The will included a note explaining that no gift had been made because she . .
CitedBenedetti v Sawiris and Others SC 17-Jul-2013
The claimant appealed against reduction of the sum awarded on his claim for a quantum meruit after helping to facilitate a very substantial business deal for the defendants.
Held: The correct approach to the amount to be paid by way of a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Land, Estoppel

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.271281

Ram and Another v Chauhan and Another: Misc 19 Jul 2017

Leeds County Court – Challenge to validity of will – witnesses not present – lack of capacity – undue influence
Saffmann HHJ
[2017] EW Misc 12 (CC)
Bailii
Wills Act 1837 9
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBanks v Goodfellow QBD 1870
Test for Capacity to Execute Will
The testator suffered from delusions, but not so badly or in such a way as was found to affect his capacity or to influence his testamentary disposition. The judge had given the following direction: ‘The question is whether . . the testator was . .
CitedKey and Another v Key and Others ChD 5-Mar-2010
The will was challenged for want of testamentary capacity. The testator was 89 years old, and the will was made within a week of the death of his wife of 65 years and without the solicitor having taken any proper steps to satisfy himself as to the . .
CitedParker and Another v Felgate and Tilly ChD 7-Jul-1883
Capacity to execute Will once instructions given
A will was challenged on the basis of alleged lack of capacity. The testatrix had capacity when instructing her solicitor, but suffered from Bright’s disease which affected her kidney, and she fell into a coma before it was prepared. She was roused . .
CitedRe Loxston, Abbot v Richardson ChD 2006
Mr N Strauss QC said: ‘The question is always whether the testator had the necessary capacity at the time the Will was executed, and that may depend upon the efforts made by others to enable her to have in mind all the relevant considerations . .
CitedEdwards v Edwards and others ChD 3-May-2007
Family members challenged the will saying that one son had exercised undue influence over the testatrix.
Held: The beneficiary son had poisoned his mother’s mind against the other family members. The will would be set aside for his undue . .
CitedPerrins v Holland and Others; In re Perrins, deceased CA 21-Jul-2010
The testator had given instructions for his will and received a draft will. The judge had found that he had capacity to make the will when he gave instructions but not when it was executed. The will having been made in accordance with his . .
CitedHawes v Burgess and Another CA 19-Feb-2013
The appellant challenged pronouncement against the validity of wills on the ground of lack of testamentary capacity and want of knowledge and approval.
Mummery LJ said: ‘Although talk of presumptions and their rebuttal is not regarded as . .
CitedSimon v Byford and Others CA 13-Mar-2014
The court was asked whether the testatrix (a) had testamentary capacity and (b) knew and approved the contents of her will when she executed it at or immediately after her 88th birthday party. The judge had answered both those questions in the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.590780

Talbot v Berkshire County Council: CA 23 Mar 1993

In a motor accident, both driver and passenger were injured. The passenger sued the driver. The driver’s insurers, without notice to the driver, made a third party claim against the Berkshire County Council, claiming contribution as between joint tortfeasors but including no claim for the driver’s own injuries. The driver later discovered his insurer’s action and himself sought damages from the council.
Held: A cause of action estoppel, which estops a plaintiff pursuing a second action which could have been combined with a first action, applied to an action for personal injuries to prevent a motorist suing a highway authority. The insurers’ solicitors appeared to have been negligent but the claim against the county council should be struck out unless there were special circumstances, and in this case there were not.
Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘There can be no doubt that the [driver’s] personal injury claim could have been brought at the time of [the passenger’s] action. It could have been included in the original third party notice issued against the council (R.S.C., Ord. 16, r. 1(b)(c)); it could have been started by a separate writ and consolidated with or ordered to be tried with [the passenger’s] action: Ord. 4, r. 9. The third party proceedings could have been amended at any time before trial and perhaps even during the trial to include such a claim, notwithstanding that it was statute-barred, since it arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as the cause of action in respect of which relief was already claimed, namely, contribution or indemnity in respect of [the passenger’s] claim: Ord. 20, r. 5. In my opinion, if it was to be pursued, it should have been so brought.’ and

‘The rule is thus in two parts. The first relates to those points which were actually decided by the court: this is res judicata in the strict sense. Secondly, those which might have been brought forward at the time, but were not. The second is not a true case of res judicata but rather is founded on the principle of public policy in preventing multiplicity of actions, it being in the public interest that there should be an end to litigation: the court will stay or strike out the subsequent action as an abuse of process.’
Stuart-Smith LJ, Mann LJ, Nourse LJ
Times 23-Mar-1993, [1994] QB 290
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedC (A Minor) v Hackney London Borough Council CA 10-Nov-1995
The mother had claimed in damages for the injuries to her health from the landlord authority’s failure to repair. Her child then brought a subsequent action in respect of his own injuries. The authority claimed the action should be stopped as res . .
CitedJohnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
CitedBrown v Rice and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The parties, the bankrupt and her trustee, had engaged in a mediation which failed at first, but applicant said an agreement was concluded on the day following. The defendants denied this, and the court as asked to determine whether a settlement had . .
CitedDivine-Bortey v London Borough of Brent CA 14-May-1998
The claimant had brought and lost an action relating to his dismissal by the defendant, who now appealed against an order that he was not estopped from bring a second claim on a different basis namely race discrimination, disapplying the rule in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.89696

Republic 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 a transaction act on an assumed state of facts or law, the assumption being shared by them both or made by one and acquiesced in by the other . . It is not enough that each of the parties acts on an assumption not communicated to the other. But it was rightly accepted by counsel for both parties that a concluded agreement is not a requirement for an estoppel by convention.’
Lord Steyn
Gazette 12-Nov-1997, Times 23-Oct-1997, [1997] UKHL 40, [1997] 4 All ER 380, [1997] 3 WLR 818, [1998] AC 878
House of Lords, Bailii
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRepublic of India v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Grace (No 2) CA 1-May-1996
An action against ship in rem prevents a personal action against the owner; there would be a risk of double jeopardy. . .

Cited by:
CitedAce Insurance Sa-Nv v Surendranath Seechurn CA 6-Feb-2002
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 . .
CitedSmithkline Beecham Plc and others v Apotex Europe Ltd and others PatC 26-Jul-2005
Application was made to join in further parties to support a cross undertaking on being made subject to interim injunctions.
Held: On orders other than asset freezing orders it was not open to the court to impose cross-undertakings against . .
CitedSmithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2) CA 23-May-2006
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through . .
CitedScottish 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 . .
CitedJones and Another v Lydon and Others ChD 23-Aug-2021
No Estoppels Established to Override Majority
The parties were former members of a band, the Sex Pistols. They disputed the continued duty to accept the decision of the majority of its members as set out in a Band Membership Agreement. Mr Lydon asserted that over the years the obligation had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.88739

Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) Ltd: 1957

By an assignment in April 1946, the plaintiff acquired the lease of a shop and it tobacconist’s business. The premises were on a street with a ground floor room and a flat roof top. On the two front sides the shop was bounded by streets and on one side of the back was an adjoining building of three stories. During the lease, the defendants, wholesale tobacconists, displayed three advertising signs on the wall with the adjoining building about the shop. The signs made of sheet metal mounted on a frame which fixed against the wall but with the mounting, it extended by 4 inches into the air space above the flat roof of the shop. In April 1948 the landlords gave to the owners of the adjoining building consent to a large new sign in place of the existing signs. In December 1948, the landlords granted a new lease of the shop to the plaintiff. By clause 1 of the lease, which contained the parcels, the premises devised to the plaintiff were expressed to be subject to ‘all that right so as wants to any of the adjacent property, and by clause 2 the plaintiff covenanted not to permit any sign or advertisement to be posted on or over any part of the exterior at the shop and premises. In January 1950, no new sign having yet been affixed on the adjoining building, its owners again obtained the permission of the landlord of the plaintiffs shop for the defendants to substitute a new large advertising sign for the existing the smaller ones. A new sign was elected by the defendants in 1950 with the plaintiff’s knowledge. Its total length was about 20 feet, and the maximum distance by which part of the sign projected from the wall and over the building was 8 inches. From time to time the defendants servants had access to the sign, from the plaintiff’s shop and with his knowledge, to carry out maintenance work and repairs. In December 1953 as a result of a business dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants, the plaintiffs asked the defendants to remove the sign. After the dispute was settled, the plaintiff on being asked by the descendants whether he still wanted the side removed, replied that it could remain. Further arose between the parties, and the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant to remove the sign, and the defendants having failed to do so now brought an action against them for trespass.
Held: McNair J granted a mandatory injunction ordering the defendants to remove a sign which projected only 8 inches over the plaintiff’s property.
1 The air space above the shop was part of the premises demised to the plaintiff on a true construction of the lease of December 1948 there was nothing to displace the prima facie conclusion that the demise of the premises included the air space above the shop;
2 when in January 1950, the landlords consented to the substitution of the new sign, they could not derogate from the demise of the airspace in December 1948 to the plaintiff;
3 the plaintiffs conduct in allowing the sign to remain on the wall of the adjoining building from 1950 onwards did not estop him from subsequently requiring it to be removed, because a be hard, as most, mary represented to the defendants but he would not object to the sign in future and representation of an intention did not give rise to an estoppel; and on the facts, the descendants had not been induced by the plantiff’s conduct to act to their prejudice to such an extent as to oblige them to continue to display the sign:
4 The invasion of the plaintiff’s air-space by the sign amounted to a trespass on the part of the defendants and not merely to a nuisance. On the facts of the case, although the injury to the plaintiffs legal rights was small, he was entitled to a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to remove that sign.
McNair J
[1957] 2 QB 344, [1957] 2 All ER 343
England and Wales

Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.268225

Downderry Construction Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Another: Admn 11 Jan 2002

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.
Richards J
[2002] EWHC 2 (Admin)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 191 192
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWestern Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2021; Ref: scu.168018

Gale v Superdrug Stores Plc: CA 25 Apr 1996

The right to resile from an admission made in pleadings is lost only if there can be found proof of prejudice to the other party. It is a matter for the judge’s discretion.
The court set out the principles on which it should act when it is asked to give leave to amend.
Gazette 22-May-1996, Times 02-May-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1300, [1996] 1 WLR 1089, [1996] 3 All ER 46, [1996] PIQR P330
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAl-Sabah v Ali and Others ChD 22-Jan-1999
The claimant alleged the fraudulent transfer of properties by use of a forged power of attorney.
Held: The power was fraudulent. Solicitors had acted under the instructions of the agent. The court referred to the Law Society’s practice . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 April 2021; Ref: scu.80734

Desert Sun Loan Corporation v Hill: CA 21 Feb 1996

A defence of Issue Estoppel was not available where the issue which was claimed to have been decided had been made under an unclear foreign procedure. It was also essential that the issue in respect of which an estoppel was now asserted had been a finding necessary to the judgment to be relied upon: ‘The principle is that an issue of fact or law which necessarily was concluded in favour of one party in the foreign proceedings cannot be reopened in foreign proceedings between the same parties here.’
Evans LJ
Gazette 20-Mar-1996, Times 21-Feb-1996, [1996] 2 All ER 847
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedGood Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA CA 24-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.79933

Barber v Staffordshire County Council: CA 29 Jan 1996

A dismissal of a claim without consideration by the tribunal created an issue estoppel. Issue estoppel rules apply equally to Industrial Tribunal decisions as elsewhere. Redundancy claim once withdrawn on one ground could not be revived on another. An order dismissing an Employment Tribunal claim on withdrawal by the Claimant is a judicial decision giving rise to cause of action estoppel.
Gazette 14-Feb-1996, Independent 02-Feb-1996, Times 29-Jan-1996, [1996] ICR 379, [1996] IRLR 229
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromStaffordshire County Council v Barber EAT 20-Oct-1995
. .

Cited by:
CitedRothschild Asset Management Limited v Ako CA 1-Mar-2002
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 . .
CitedT-Mobile (Uk) Ltd. and Another v Office of Communications CA 12-Dec-2008
The claimant telecoms companies objected to a proposed scheme for future licensing of available spectrum. The scheme anticipated a bias in favour of auctioniung such content. It was not agreed whether any challenge to the decision should be by way . .
CitedSodexho Ltd v Gibbons EAT 14-Jul-2005
EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. . .
DistinguishedSajid v Sussex Muslim Society CA 2-Oct-2001
The defendant appealed against the strike out of parts of its defence. The claimant was employed as the mosque director and imam. He had brought an action in the Industrial Tribunal alleging wrongful dismissal, but notifying the defendants that any . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.78186

Ing Bank Nv v Ros Roca Sa: CA 31 Mar 2011

The court was asked to construe a clause governing the calculation of an ‘additional fee’ for financial services provided by ING Bank NV (‘ING’) to Ros Roca SA (‘Ros Roca’). In monetary terms ING claims 6,700,000 Euros; on Ros Roca’s interpretation, upheld by the judge, the correct amount is 943,922.44 euros. The cross-appeal is based on the contention that, even if ING succeeds on the construction issue, it is precluded by estoppel from relying on that construction.
‘Construction cannot be pushed beyond its proper limits in pursuit of remedying what is perceived to be a flaw in the working of a contract. It is now clear, in a less literalist era, that where a contract makes commercial nonsense on its own terms, it should be interpreted if possible in a way which avoids the absurdity.’
Rix, Carnwath, Stanley Burnton LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 353, [2012] Bus LR 266, [2012] 1 WLR 472
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 March 2021; Ref: scu.431608

Foster v Bon Groundwork Ltd: EAT 17 Mar 2011

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
In April 2009, the Claimant, who was then 77 years of age, was employed by the Respondent, when he was laid off without pay. While still being employed by the Respondent he submitted an ET1 alleging he had been laid off.
By a judgment of Employment Judge Salter (‘the first judgment’), it was held that the Claimant was not entitled to redundancy pay. The Claimant was dismissed because of retirement with effect from 31 July 2009.
He then submitted a new ET1 claiming, among other things, four different types of unfair dismissal, notice pay in breach of contract and a guarantee payment.
The Respondent applies to have the claims struck out as being res judicata by reason of the first judgment on alternatively as an abuse in the Henderson v Henderson sense. The application was granted save in respect of the guarantee payment. The Claimant appealed and the Respondent cross-appealed in respect of the guarantee payment.
Held –
1. Appeal allowed as:
(a) Res judicata did not apply as although the first Tribunal held that the Claimant was not dismissed by reason of redundancy, this did not create an estoppel as (i) this finding was not necessary for the decision as the claim was layoff (Arnold v National Westminster Bank [1991] 2 AC 93, 105 applied; and (ii) In any event, the first Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with a redundancy as it was premature (Watts v Rubery Owen [1997] 2 All ER 1, applied);
(b) This was not a case of abuse as there was no oppressive conduct and this was not a case of the Claimant abusing the court process (Johnson v Gore-Wood [2002] 2 AC 1, 31 applied).
The cross-appeal was dismissed as the Employment Judge was entitled to conclude that it was not an abuse in the Henderson v Henderson sense to pursue this claim in the second action.
Silber J
[2011] UKEAT 0382 – 10 – 1703
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedHenderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
Still Good LawWatts v Rubery Owen Conveyancer Limited EAT 1977
The claimant sought a redundancy payment. The employer said that his employment had not yet finished.
Held: Kilner Brown J said: ‘The effect of these cases is that where an application is made to an Industrial Tribunal before the act of . .
MentionedPritchard-Rhodes Limited v Boon and Milton EAT 1979
An application to the Industrial Tribunal for a redundancy payment was not effective because it failed to comply with the statutory requirements which, on their true construction, provided that an application could not be effectively made to an . .
CitedO’Laoire v Jackel International Limited (No 2) CA 1991
On taking up employment the plaintiff was told he would later be appointed managing director. His employment was terminated, and he sought damages.
Held: The defendant was estopped from denying it would appoint him managing director, since . .
CitedArnold v National Westminster Bank Plc HL 1991
Tenants invited the court to construe the terms of a rent review provision in the sub-underlease under which they held premises. The provision had been construed in a sense adverse to them in earlier proceedings before Walton J, but they had been . .
CitedDanyluk v Ainsworth Technologies Inc 12-Jul-2001
Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Administrative law – Issue estoppel – Employee filing complaint against employer under Employment Standards Act seeking unpaid wages and commissions – Employee subsequently . .
CitedMeek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
CitedChapman v Simon CA 1994
The court considered the approach where a party sought to raise on appeal a complaint not made in the case presented to the tribunal.
Held: An Employment Tribunal must decide the issues which are put before it and should not decide issues . .
CitedSouth Durham Health Authority v Unison EAT 6-Feb-1995
Mummery J P said: ‘Similarly in the case of entitlement to redundancy payments discussed in the authorities relied on by [counsel] there is no right of action, no entitlement to the payments before the date of termination has arrived. An originating . .
CitedWilliams, Regina v CACD 2-Nov-2010
The offence of causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured, is committed if the driver is unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured and if the driving is a cause of death in the sense that it was ‘more than negligible or de . .
CitedWatt (Formerly Carter) v Ahsan HL 21-Nov-2007
The claimant was a Pakistani member of the Labour Party. He had sought selection as parliamentary candidate, but allegations had been made about behaviour of members in the Pakistani community in his ward and the local party had been suspended. A . .
CitedManson v Vooght; Coopers and Lybrand International; Coopers and Lybrand International Trading As Cork Gully and Barclays Bank Plc CA 3-Nov-1998
The claimant was the former managing director of a company, which had been placed into administrative receivership. The claims were for breach of contract and conversion (in relation to antique furniture) and they were brought against the . .
CitedHM Prison Service v Barua EAT 15-Nov-2006
EAT Time Limits
Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal
For the purpose of the extension of the time afforded by reg. 15 of the . .
CitedJohnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
CitedMorris v Wentworth-Stanley CA 4-Sep-1998
Two actions had been brought by a contractor against the partners in a farming partnership. Those actions were consolidated. One of the partners died and when the plaintiff found that out he discontinued his claims against the deceased partner and . .
CitedBradford and Bingley Building Society v Seddon and Hancock; Walsh and Rhodes (Trading As Hancocks (a Firm) CA 11-Mar-1999
There was an unsatisfied judgment on a claim by a defendant in an earlier action against a third party. In a subsequent action against the defendant the latter issued third party proceedings against the original and different third parties.
Updated: 06 March 2021; Ref: scu.430660

Bhambhani v Willowcourt Managment Co (1985) Ltd: LT 14 Apr 2008

LT LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – construction of lease – estoppel – whether tenant estopped from denying that increased quarterly payments on account of service charges were due despite not having been increased in the manner provided for by the lease – whether estoppel being used as a sword not a shield.
[2008] EWLands LRX – 22 – 2007
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 February 2021; Ref: scu.270490

Lissimore v Downing: ChD 31 Mar 2003

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.’
Norris QC J
[2003] EWHC B1 (Ch), [2003] 2 FLR 308, [2003] Fam Law 566
Bailii
Citing:
See AlsoDowning v Lissimore CA 6-Nov-2002
Application for order to reflect interest of cohabiting partner in house. . .

Cited by:
CitedJames v Thomas CA 23-Nov-2007
The claimant sought an interest in the property registered in the sole name of the respondent. The respondent had inherited a share in the property, and then bought out the interests of his siblings with support of a loan. The claimant had made no . .
CitedYeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 February 2021; Ref: scu.263204

Harris v Kent and Another: ChD 14 Mar 2007

The claimant said the defendant had failed to complete his promise to arrange for the issue of shares in a company in return for a loan. The defendant denied the contract.
Held: It had been agreed to treat the claimant as a fifty per cent participant, and an estoppel had been created as against the defendants.
As to damages: ‘The ‘but for the breach’ analysis called for by the application of the basic equitable principle requires the court to decide what would hypothetically have happened if, instead of committing the breach of trust, the Kents as trustees had in all respects complied with their fiduciary obligations. In this respect equity follows the law, in which for example damages are quantified by reference to the difference between the effect of the breach and the position which the claimant would have been in, had the defendant complied with his contract. ‘ Damages were awarded accordingly.
Briggs J
[2007] EWHC 463 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWalsh v Lonsdale CA 1882
Lonsdale purported to grant to Walsh a seven year lease with rent payable in advance. The lease was not embodied in a deed, and when Walsh went into possession, an annual tenancy with rent payable in arrear was created. Walsh did not pay in advance, . .
CitedTarget Holdings Ltd v Redferns (A Firm) and Another HL 21-Jul-1995
The defendant solicitors had acted for a purchaser, Crowngate, which had agreed to buy a property from a company called Mirage for andpound;775,000. Crowngate had arranged however that the property would first be passed through a chain of two . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 February 2021; Ref: scu.250019

Vehicles and Supplies Ltd and others v Financial Institutions Services Ltd: PC 28 Jun 2005

(Jamaica) Parties had entered into a joint venture, before one fell into severe financial difficulties. A scheme of arrangement was proposed in which plots which were part of the development would be apportioned, but steps were not taken to complete this. The land was transferred to VandS. FIS obtained an order for possession. VandS appealed, saying it was a tenant of the properties.
Held: The claimants pleaded that no no estoppel per rem judicata arose. No such estoppel could arise in respect of an order which was not final, such as an interim order or a judgment obtained in default of appearance. The appeal was dismissed.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
[2005] UKPC 24
PC, Bailii, PC
Commonwealth
Citing:
CitedRamsden v Dyson HL 1866
The Vice-Chancellor had held that two tenants of Sir John Ramsden, the owner of a large estate near Huddersfield, were entitled to long leases of plots on the estate. They ostensibly held the plots as tenants at will only, but they had spent their . .
DistinguishedPatrick v Beverley Gardens Development Company Ltd PC 1979
A resident magistrate (whose summary order for possession of land, made on proceedings commenced by an information, lay at the foundation of arguments about estoppel) had no jurisdiction to decide a question of title to land. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 January 2021; Ref: scu.228319

Parker v Parker: ChD 24 Jul 2003

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.
The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison
[2003] EWHC 1846 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCommissioners of Customs and Excise v A: A v A CA 22-Jul-2002
The Customs appealed an order allowing a judge in divorce ancillary relief proceedings to make an order transferring the matrimonial home and two life policies in such a way as would defeat their attempt to enforce recovery under the 1994 Act.
CitedPascoe v Turner CA 1-Dec-1978
The defendant had been assured by the plaintiff that ‘the house is yours and everything in it.’ In reliance on that assurance she carried out improvements to the house. Although the improvements were modest, their cost represented a large part of . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedGillett v Holt and Another CA 23-Mar-2000
Repeated Assurances Created Equitable Estoppel
Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
CitedJennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed CA 22-Feb-2002
The claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel against the respondents. He had worked for the deceased over many years, for little payment, and doing more and more for her. Though he still worked full time at first, he came to spend nights at the . .
CitedKeelwalk Properties Ltd v Betty Waller and Another CA 30-Jul-2002
The claimant appealed refusal of its claim for possession against the respondents, occupiers of single-storey wooden bungalows on its land. The leases had expired. The defendants said the structures were their own, and not subject to the lease, and . .
CitedInwards v Baker CA 13-Jan-1965
An indulgent father had encouraged his son to build a bungalow on his, the father’s, land. The son had done so in the expectation, encouraged by the father, that he would be permitted to remain in occupation.
Held: The court formulated the . .
CitedCrabb v Arun District Council CA 23-Jul-1975
The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .
CitedGriffiths v Williams CA 1978
The claimant had been told she could live in a house for her life. On that assurance she improved the house.
Held: She had raised an equity, but how could it be satisfied? The court declined to order the grant of a life interest because it . .
CitedWatson v Goldsborough CA 1986
The representative of an angling club sent the owner of the land a draft lease. The owner agreed that the club could have a lease, and in reliance on that assurance the club improved the land.
Held: An equity had been established and that it . .
CitedIn re Basham dec’d; Basham v Basham 1986
The claimant and her husband had helped her mother and her stepfather throughout the claimant’s adult life. She received no remuneration but understood that she would inherit her stepfather’s property when he died. After her mother’s death and until . .
CitedPridean Limited v Forest Taverns Limited; John Hipwell and David Marshall CA 28-Nov-1996
The claimant owned a public house. It set out with the defendant to to acquire the premises or to take a lease of them. The defendant went into occupation, and carried out works. Negotiations continued, but broke down over the form of protection to . .
CitedWilliam John Perry Orgee v William John Neil Orgee CA 5-Nov-1997
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 . .
CitedJT Developments v Quinn and Another CA 1990
The plaintiff told the defendant it was willing to grant a lease on the same terms as those contained in a new tenancy that the plaintiff had recently granted to the tenant of a nearby shop, also owned by the plaintiff. The defendant carried out . .
CitedWillis v Hoare 1999
Auld LJ said of Crabb: there ‘could be no doubt as to the nature and extent of the remedy required to give effect to [the] equity’. Of JT Developments ‘the nature and terms of the equity were readily identifiable’. Auld LJ said: ‘There may be . .
CitedNew Zealand Netherlands Society ‘Oranje’ Inc v Laurentuis Cornelis Kuys PC 1963
(New Zealand) The scope of a fiduciary duty may be modified by a course of dealing by the person to whom the duty is owed. ‘The obligation not to profit from a position of trust, or, as it sometimes relevant to put it, not to allow a conflict to . .
CitedKelly v Cooper and Another PC 25-Nov-1992
There was a dispute between a client and an estate agent in Bermuda. The client sued the estate agent for damages for breach of duty in failing to disclose material information to him and for putting himself in a position where his duty and his . .
CitedJ J Harrison v Harrison 2002
A company director, having concealed relevant information from the board, obtained company property at a substantial undervalue. . .
CitedRemon v City of London Real Property Co Ltd CA 1921
The court was asked whether the plaintiff, a tenant of rooms to which (once enacted) the Act of 1920 applied and who had been excluded from possession by the landlord’s re-entry on the day that the Act came into force following service of a notice . .
CitedJavad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .
CitedSopwith v Stuchbury 1983
The tenant had been allowed into occupation of residential property pending agreement of the terms of a tenancy. He argued that he was a tenant at will.
Held: He was a mere licensee, and so was not entitled to go back on an agreed rent . .
CitedIsaac v Hotel de Paris Ltd 1960
. .

Cited by:
CitedGibson v Douglas and Another CA 8-Dec-2016
Appeal against rejection of claim for damages for wrongful eviction and damages to goods.
Held: The judge had found not that the defendant had failed to give appropriate notice, but that he had not been personally involved other than as an . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 January 2021; Ref: scu.185053

Wilson v Truelove: ChD 25 Mar 2003

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.
Simon Berry QC
Times 21-Feb-2003, Gazette 13-Mar-2003, Gazette 10-Apr-2003, [2003] EWHC 750 (Ch), [2003] 23 EG 136, [2003] 2 EGLR 63, [2003] 10 EG 164, [2003] WTLR 609
Bailii
Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 9(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAdams v Lindsell KBD 5-Jun-1818
No Contract by Post until Acceptance Received
The defendant sent his offer of wool for sale to the plaintiff by post. The plaintiff’s acceptance was at first misdirected. Before receiving the reply the defendant had sold the wool elsewhere, but this was only after he would have received the . .
CitedCrabb v Arun District Council CA 23-Jul-1975
The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .
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 . .
CitedKeen v Holland CA 1984
Oliver LJ rejected a submission that, where parties were shown to have a common view about the legal effect of a contract into which they had entered and it was established that one of them would not, to the other’s knowledge, have entered into it . .
CitedShah v Shah CA 10-Apr-2001
The court was asked as to the enforceability of a document under the terms of which the defendants were to make a payment of pounds 1.5 million to the claimant. The document was described as a deed and provided for each defendant to sign in the . .

Cited by:
CitedTaylor v Couch ChD 1-Mar-2012
The case raised the question of law involving the application of the rule against perpetuities to what, on the claimant’s case, is a right of pre-emption created before the coming into force in 2010 of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009.’ . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.180367

Schaefer v Schuman: PC 1972

(New South Wales – Australia) A promise to leave the property had been performed, and the issue was as to the relevance, if any, and the effect of an earier promise when the value of the devise was sought to be reduced by an order by way of financial provision under the New South Wales Family Provision on Inheritance legislation. The rights of the devisee were properly founded in contract. Held (majority, Lord Simon of Glaisdale dissenting on this as on the major point in the case). The case was indeed properly founded in contract, and, that being so, it was immune from the effect of an order under the family provision legislation.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale
[1972] AC 572
Australia
Cited by:
CitedThorner v Major and others CA 2-Jul-2008
The deceased had written a will, revoked it but then not made another. The claimant had worked for the deceased understanding that property would be left to him, and now claimed that the estate property was held under a trust for him.
Held: . .
(2008-09) 11 ITELR 344, [2008] 2 FCR 435, [2008] EWCA Civ 732, [2008] WTLR 1289, [2009] 3 All ER 945

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.324695

Simm and Others v Anglo-American Telegraph Co: CA 1879

A firm which had acted through nominees sought to raise an estoppel as to its status on the company registers.
Held: The nominees acquired a ‘title by estoppel’ against the company following the issue by the company of a share certificate to the nominees. But that ‘title’ had been lost by the time the action began and was not available to Burge and Co. No representation was made which they had acted upon. Even if there had been a representation, that firm had not altered their position in any material way.
Brett LJ, Cotton LJ
(1879) 5 QBD 188
Cited by:
DistinguishedDixon v Kennaway and Co 1900
Farwell J said: ‘There is no doubt on the authorities that a certificate under the seal of the company estops the company from denying the title of a person who has accepted and acted on the certificate. In Knights -v- Wiffen [LR 5 QB 660 at 665] . .
[1900] 1 Ch 833
CitedCadbury Schweppes Plc and Another v Halifax Share Dealing Ltd and Another ChD 23-May-2006
Fraudsters had successfully contrived to sell shares of others, by re-registering the shares to new addresses and requesting new certificates. The question was which of the company, the company registrars and the stockbrokers should bear the loss. . .
[2006] EWHC 1184 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.242177

In re Ottos Kopje Diamond Mines Ltd: CA 1893

Bowen LJ: (referring to Bahia) ‘The way in which the Court made the company liable was this: they said that in as much as the certificate had been intended to be acted upon, it became a document the truth of which the company could not deny as against the transferee to whom it was intended to be shewn; and, therefore, it precluded the company, as against the transferee, from denying the truth of what the certificate contained; they could not be in any better position than if the statement were true;’
Bowen LJ
[1893] Ch 618
Cited by:
MentionedCadbury Schweppes Plc and Another v Halifax Share Dealing Ltd and Another ChD 23-May-2006
Fraudsters had successfully contrived to sell shares of others, by re-registering the shares to new addresses and requesting new certificates. The question was which of the company, the company registrars and the stockbrokers should bear the loss. . .
[2006] EWHC 1184 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.242174

Walton v Walton: CA 14 Apr 1994

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.’
Hoffmann LJ
Unreported, 14 April 1994
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedThorner v Major and others HL 25-Mar-2009
The deceased had made a will including a gift to the claimant, but had then revoked the will. The claimant asserted that an estoppel had been created in his favour over a farm, and that the defendant administrators of the promisor’s estate held it . .
[2009] UKHL 18, [2009] 13 EG 142, [2009] WTLR 71, [2009] Fam Law 583, [2009] 2 FLR 405, [2009] 1 WLR 776

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.374701

Baxendale v Bennett: CA 1878

‘All estoppels are odious’ They should not be upheld unless they satisfy precisely the provisions of the law.
Bramwell LJ
[1878] 3 QBD 525, 3 CPD 32
Cited by:
CitedCadbury Schweppes Plc and Another v Halifax Share Dealing Ltd and Another ChD 23-May-2006
Fraudsters had successfully contrived to sell shares of others, by re-registering the shares to new addresses and requesting new certificates. The question was which of the company, the company registrars and the stockbrokers should bear the loss. . .
[2006] EWHC 1184 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 December 2020; Ref: scu.242179

Fenner v Blake: 1900

The tenant told the landlord that he wanted to vacate the premises midway during the tenancy. Relying on the oral representation, the landlord sold the premises to a third party. The tenant subsequently refused to vacate the premises and claimed that there had been no consideration for his promise to quit the premises.
Held: The tenant was estopped from resiling from his promise to vacate the premises because the landlord had incurred a liability in relying on the tenant’s promise by entering into the sale and purchase agreement for the premises. In so doing, the landlord had rendered himself liable to an action at the suit of the purchaser if he was unable to provide vacant possession.
[1900] 1 QB 426
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – King v Jackson (T/a Jackson Flower Company) CA 16-Jul-1997
    The defendant appealed an award of andpound;11,000 damages for unlawful eviction of his tenant. The tenant had found herself unable to pay the rent and had given notice to quit. She was then told to leave immediately. The judge awarded statutory . .
    [1997] EWCA Civ 2118, [1998] 1 EGLR 30

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 December 2020; Ref: scu.196695

Regina v Inhabitants of the Township of Hartington Middle Quarter: 22 Feb 1855

Coleridge J said: ‘The question then is, whether the former judgment concludes, not merely as to the point actually decided, but as to a matter which it was necessary to decide, and which was actually decided, as the groundwork of the decision itself, though not then directly the point at issue. And we think it does conclude to that extent . . Now, it cannot be said that the facts we are considering were merely collateral to the decision in the former case. The question then was where two unemancipated children were settled: and it was answered by showing that they were the legitimate issue of William and Esther, that is that these two were lawfully married, and the children born after, and that William was settled with the now appellants. Strike either of these facts out, and there is no ground for the decision: these facts therefore were necessarily and directly matter of enquiry. The question now is, where is Esther settled: and this is answered by showing the same two facts, the marriage of Esther and William, and the settlement of William, the two facts already decided. The judgments in the two cases therefore rest on the same foundation; which, having been settled in the first cannot be, as between the same parties, unsettled in the latter.’
Coleridge J
[1855] 4 ECB 780, [1855] EngR 264, (1855) 4 El and Bl 780, (1855) 119 ER 288
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Good Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA CA 24-Nov-2003
    The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an . .
    [2003] EWCA Civ 1668, Times 27-Nov-03, Gazette 15-Jan-04, [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 67
  • Cited – Sarwar v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (Rev 1) ChD 27-Jul-2011
    The claimant appealed against a finding of indebtedness to the bank. He had said at trial that the bank had been charging interest at 25%. The bank denied this, but after trial it became clear that he had been correct. The bank argued for abuse of . .
    [2011] EWHC 2233 (Ch)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 December 2020; Ref: scu.188231

The Vistafjord: CA 1988

A common assumption which was known to be so by both parties and upon which both acted, was enough to create an estoppel: Bingham LJ ‘Each [of the parties] was fully privy to the thinking of the other. Moreover we have very clear conduct crossing the line . . . This is not a case of inaction, but of action on both sides of which the other party was full cognizant’
Bingham LJ
[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 343
England and Wales
Cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 December 2020; Ref: scu.242626

re Queen’s Moat House Plc: ChD 5 Dec 2001

The interests of justice are unlikely to require a second investigation of facts, which have already been the subject matter of an exhaustive examination.
Mr Justice Pumfrey
Unreported, 5 December 2001
England and Wales
Cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 December 2020; Ref: scu.186021

Cottingham v Earl of Shrewsbury: 1843

‘If a plaintiff can not get at his right without trying and deciding a case between Co-defendants the Court will try and decide that case, and the Co-defendants will be bound. But, if the relief given to the Plaintiff does not require or involve a decision of any case between Co-defendants, the Co-defendants will not be bound as between each other by any proceeding which may be necessary only to the decree the Plaintiff obtains’
Sir James Wigram V-C
(1843) 3 Hare 627
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Sweetman v Nathan and others CA 25-Jul-2003
    The claimant had been engaged with his solicitor in a fraudulent land transaction. He now sought to sue the solicitor for negligence. The solicitor replied that the claimant was unable to rely upon his own unlawful act to make a claim.
    Held: . .
    [2003] EWCA Civ 1115, Times 01-Sep-03, [2004] PNLR 89

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 December 2020; Ref: scu.186009

Wain v Sherwood and Sons Transport Ltd: CA 4 Jun 1998

Plaintiff, having succeeded in claim for damage to his car, was subject to an action estoppel, since he could have had the additional claim for personal injury damages settled at the same time. A mistake by his adviser which fell short of being actionable but which resulted in a party not being able to pursue a remedy was not enough to set aside an issue estoppel having once litigated the matter.
References: Times 16-Jul-1998, Gazette 24-Jun-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 905
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Applied – Henderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
    Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
    The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
    Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
    ((1843) 3 Hare 100, [1843] EngR 917, , (1843) 67 ER 313)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.90231

Watt v Dignan and Others: CA 5 Oct 2017

The parties disputed the continued existence of rights to use a toilet. The servient owner sought to establish an estoppel.
Held: The appeal failed.
References: [2017] EWCA Civ 1390
Links: Bailii
Judges: Gloster VP CA, Lewison LJJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Routestone Ltd v Minories Finance ChD 1996 ([1997] BCC 180, [1997] 1 EGLR 123)
    A receiver’s management duties will ordinarily impose on him no general duty to exercise the power of sale, or to ‘work’ an estate by refurbishing it before sale. Speaking of the role of an expert witness ‘What really matters in most cases are the . .
  • Cited – Lester and Another v Woodgate and Another CA 9-Mar-2010 (, [2010] EWCA Civ 199, [2010] 2 P and CR 21)
    Sherwell was entitled to a right of way over land belonging to Mr Mees. Mr Mees carried out work to the route over which the right of way ran which made it unusable. The work that he carried out amounted to an actionable nuisance. Sherwell made no . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 13 November 2020; Ref: scu.595819

Matchmove Ltd v Dowding and Another: CA 7 Dec 2016

Appeal against a finding that an oral agreement for the purchase of land was effective through a proprietary estopple and a constructive trust.
References: [2016] EWCA Civ 1233
Links: Bailii
Judges: Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lloyd Jones LJ and Arnold J
Statutes: Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2(5)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 26 October 2020; Ref: scu.572005

Spire Healthcare Ltd v Brooke: QBD 11 Nov 2016

The claimant, Spire, claimed an indemnity or contribution from the defendantin respect of damages and costs which it, Spire, has paid to Mr Jellett in settlement of a personal injuries claim brought by Mr Jellett against both Spire and Mr Brooke
References: [2016] EWHC 2828 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Morris J
Statutes: Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.571117

Derby v Scottish Equitable Plc: CA 16 Mar 2001

The court was asked questions of some general interest and importance as to claims for money paid under a mistake and the defences of change of position and estoppel.
References: [2001] EWCA Civ 369, [2001] 3 All ER 818, [2001] OPLR 181, [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 274, [2001] Pens LR 163
Links: Bailii
Judges: Simon Brown, Robert Walker, Keene LJJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 19 October 2020; Ref: scu.147474

Chai v Peng (1): FD 17 Oct 2014

References: [2014] EWHC 3519 (Fam)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Bodey J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • See Also – Chai v Peng FD 13-Mar-2014 (, [2014] EWHC 750 (Fam))
    Application for further maintenance pending suit. . .
  • See Also – Chai v Peng FD 1-May-2014 (, [2014] EWHC 1519 (Fam))
    The court was severely critical of the practice in divorce proceedings of uissuing a petition for divorce but then not serving it for some time. Holman J referred to a colourful metaphor deployed by leading counsel for the husband: ‘To file [a . .

This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Chai v Peng (2) FD 17-Oct-2014 (, [2014] EWHC 3518 (Fam))
    . .
  • See Also – Chai v Peng CA 12-Jun-2015 (, [2015] EWCA Civ 790)
    Application to adjourn full hearing of appeal. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 06 October 2020; Ref: scu.538865

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Reed International Books Australia Pty Ltd; 7 Sep 2010

References: [2010] FCA 984
Links: Austlii
Coram: Bennett J
Ratio: Austlii (Federal Court of Australia)
COPYRIGHT – respondent reproduces headlines and creates abstracts of articles in the applicant’s newspaper – whether reproduction of headlines constitutes copyright infringement – whether copyright subsists in individual newspaper headlines, in an article with its headline, in the compilation of all the articles and headlines in a newspaper edition and in the compilation of the edition as a whole – literary work – copyright protection for titles – use of headline as citation to article – policy considerations – originality – authorship – whether presumption of originality for anonymous works available – whether work of joint authorship – whether the headlines constitute a substantial part of each compilation – whether the work of writing headlines is part of the work of compilation – whether fair dealing for the purpose of or associated with reporting news
ESTOPPEL – whether applicant estopped from asserting copyright infringement by respondent – applicant has known for many years that headlines of the applicant’s newspaper are reproduced in the abstracting service – applicant had subscribed to and resupplied the abstracting service – whether respondent relied on an assumption that the applicant will not assert copyright infringement by reproduction by headlines – whether applicant created or encouraged the assumption – detriment – whether unconscionable to depart from assumption
Bennett J said: ‘In my view, the headline of each article functions as the title of the article . . It may be a clever title. That is not sufficient. Headlines are, like titles, simply too insubstantial and too short to qualify for copyright protection as literary works. The function of the headline is as a title to the article as well as a brief statement of its subject, in a compressed form comparable in length to a book title or the like. It is, generally, too trivial to be a literary work, much as a logo was held to be too trivial to be an artistic work . . It may be that evidence directed to a particular headline, or a title of so extensive and of such a significant character, could be sufficient to warrant a finding of copyright protection . . but that is not the case here . . Fairfax claims copyright in the headlines as a class of work, based on the evidence of a general practice that headlines are determined by staff and settled at meetings of staff to provide a title to a story which also fits into the format of the page . . That is insufficient to overcome the reasoning for the established practice of denying copyright protection to titles which is the apt characterisation for headlines as a class . . The need to identify a work by its name is a reason for the exclusion of titles from copyright protection in the public interest. A proper citation of a newspaper article requires not only reference to the name of the newspaper but also reproduction of the headline . . If titles were subject to copyright protection, conventional bibliographic references to an article would infringe. Such considerations may well be a reason for the fact that headlines and ‘short phrases’ are excluded from copyright in the United States . . In my view, to afford published headlines, as a class, copyright protection as literary works would tip the balance too far against the interest of the public in the freedom to refer or be referred to articles by their headlines.’
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 29-Aug-16
Ref: 470926

Meyers v Casey; 13 Oct 1913

References: [1913] HCA 50, (1913) 17 CLR 90
Links: Austlii
Coram: Barton ACJ, Isaacs, Powers and Rich JJ
Ratio (High Court of Australia) The Court considered a decision of the committee of the Victoria Racing Club. Isaac J said of objections considered by the committee: ‘They are, by reason of the committee’s decision, res judicatae, as much as if instead of the committee it had been the Supreme Court unappealed from, that has so held. That rests on the well known rule that a competent court or other tribunal has jurisdiction to give a wrong judgment, and if there is no appeal in the strict sense, then its decision, whether right or wrong, must stand, and cannot be questioned in any subsequent proceedings elsewhere.’
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 16-May-16
Ref: 428358

Cuthbertson v Irving; 24 Jun 1859

References: [1859] EngR 767, (1859) 4 H & N 742, (1859) 157 ER 1034, (1859) 4 Hurl & N 742
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Martin B
Martin B said: ‘There are some points in the law relating to estoppels which seem clear. First, when a lessor without any legal estate or title demises to another, the parties themselves are estopped from disputing the validity of the lease on that ground; in other words a tenant cannot deny his landlord’s title, nor can the lessor dispute the validity of the lease. Secondly, where a lessor by deed grants a lease without title and subsequently acquires one, the estoppel is said to be fed, and the lease and reversion then take effect in interest and not by estoppel . . .’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Scott -v- Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 52, Bailii Summary, [2014] HLR 48, [2015] 1 AC 385, [2014] 3 WLR 1163, [2014] WLR(D) 447, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0102, SC, SC Summary)
    The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .
  • Appeal from – Cuthbertson -v- Irving ([1860] EngR 980, Commonlii, (1860) 6 H & N 135, (1860) 158 ER 56)
    Held: Decision affirmed. Neither the lessee nor the lessor can dispute one another’s title and if the lessor without a legal estate later acquires one, the estoppel is ‘fed’ . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 26-Oct-15 Ref: 288119

Ferrier v Stewart; 24 Jun 1912

References: [1912] 15 CLR 32, [1912] HCA 47
Links: Austlii
Coram: Isaacs J
High Court of Australia – The plaintiffs were the surviving members of a firm, owed money by the defendant’s husband confirmed promissory notes. The firm extend his credit against new promissory notes, provided that they were indorsed by the defendant also so as to make her liable on the notes. This she agreed to do. In order to effect a contract between herself and the firm, the notes had formally to be indorsed by the firm to her before she put her indorsement on them. In fact, the notes were given to her, for her indorsement, before the firm’s indorsement appeared on them and she placed her indorsement on them as if they had already been indorsed to her. The notes were thereafter indorsed by the firm, so that on their face they appeared to have been indorsed in the correct chronological sequence, contrary to the facts as both parties knew them to be. The defendant subsequently refused to pay the bills on the ground that they had not been indorsed to her at the time of her signature.
Held: This defence failed. The parties had adopted a conventional basis for the transaction. They impliedly agreed that, when the promissory note should be completed by other indorsements, it should be assumed to have been issued and indorsed by the parties in due order. From this assumption the indorsee was not permitted to depart, although all parties had been aware of the actual state of affairs.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Prime Sight Ltd -v- Lavarello PC ([2013] WLR (D) 514, Bailii, [2013] UKPC 22, WLRD, [2014] 2 WLR 84, [2013] 4 All ER 659, [2014] 1 AC 436)
    (Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.

Grundt v Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines Limited; 8 Oct 1937

References: (1937) 59 CLR 641, [1937] HCA 58
Links: Austlii
Coram: Dixon J
(High Court of Australia) Parties to a transaction may choose to enter into it on the basis that certain facts are to be treated as correct as between themselves for the purpose of the transaction, although both know that they are contrary to the true state of affairs, in which case the necessary convention for an estoppel will be established.
Dixon J said: ‘The justice of an estoppel is not established by the fact in itself that a state of affairs has been assumed as the basis of action or inaction and that a departure from the assumption would turn the action or inaction into a detrimental change of position. It depends also on the manner in which the assumption has been occasioned or induced. Before anyone can be estopped, he must have played such a part in the adoption of the assumption that it would be unfair or unjust if he were left free to ignore it. But the law does not leave such a question of fairness or justice at large. It defines with more or less completeness the kinds of participation in the making or acceptance of the assumption that will suffice to preclude the party if the other requirements for an estoppel are satisfied.’
and ‘It is important to notice that belief in the correctness of the facts or state of affairs assumed is not always necessary. Parties may adopt as the conventional basis of a transaction between them an assumption which they know to be contrary to the actual state of affairs. . . Parties to a deed sometimes deliberately set out an hypothetical state of affairs as the basis of their covenance in order to create a mutual estoppel.’
Latham CJ said: ‘The line between estoppel, which precludes a person from proving and relying upon a particular fact, and waiver which involves an abandonment of a right by acting in a manner inconsistent with the continued existence of the right, is not always clearly drawn.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Prime Sight Ltd -v- Lavarello PC ([2013] WLR (D) 514, Bailii, [2013] UKPC 22, WLRD, [2014] 2 WLR 84, [2013] 4 All ER 659, [2014] 1 AC 436)
    (Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.
  • Cited – Central Newbury Car Auctions Limited -v- Unity Finance Limited CA ([1957] 1 QB 371)
    The defendant finance company alleged that the plaintiff car dealer, by its conduct, was estopped from denying the authority of their (rogue) customer to sell the car at issue, because they had permitted the customer, unkown to them, to take . .

Stroughill v Buck; 13 Feb 1850

References: [1850] EngR 295, (1850) 14 QB 781, (1850) 117 ER 301
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Patteson J
Patteson J said: ‘When a recital is intended to be a statement which all parties to the deed have mutually agreed to admit as true, it is an estoppel upon all. But, when it is intended to be the statement of one party only, the estoppel is confined to that party, and the intention is to be gathered from construing the instrument.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Prime Sight Ltd -v- Lavarello PC ([2013] WLR (D) 514, Bailii, [2013] UKPC 22, WLRD, [2014] 2 WLR 84, [2013] 4 All ER 659, [2014] 1 AC 436)
    (Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.

M’Cance v The London And North Western Railway Company; 20 Jun 1864

References: [1864] EngR 595, (1864) 3 H & C 343, (1864) 159 ER 563
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Williams J
The plaintff contracted with the defendant for the transport of horses, understating their value. On their loss, the plaintiff sought their full value. The defendant had succeeded in limiting the award to the value stated.
Held: Williams J cited with approval Blackburn’s statement in his Treaty on the Contract of Sale that ‘when parties have agreed to act upon an assumed state of facts their rights between themselves are justly made to depend on the conventional state of facts, and not on the truth.’
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – M’Cance -v- The London And North Western Railway Company ([1861] EngR 967, Commonlii, (1861) 7 H & N 477, (1861) 158 ER 559)
    In an action against a railway Company, the first count of the declaration alleged that the plaintiff employed the defendants to provide trucks for the carriage of the plaintiff’s horses, for hire to be paid by the plaintiff, in consideration . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Prime Sight Ltd -v- Lavarello PC ([2013] WLR (D) 514, Bailii, [2013] UKPC 22, WLRD, [2014] 2 WLR 84, [2013] 4 All ER 659, [2014] 1 AC 436)
    (Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.

Carpenter v Buller; 28 Apr 1841

References: , [1841] EngR 552, (1841) 8 M & W 209, (1841) 151 ER 1013
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Parke B
The defence to an action of trespass was that the defendant was seised of the land in question. He produced a deed, made between himself, the plaintiff and a third party, in which this was stated to be the case
Held: The plaintiff was not estopped from denying the defendant’s seisin because the action was not brought on the deed which did not directly concern the land. The doctrine of estoppel as it applies to recitals extends also to instruments not by deed.
Parke B said: ‘If a distinct statement of a particular fact is made in the recital of a bond, or other instrument under seal, and a contract is made with reference to that recital, it is unquestionably true, that, as between the parties to that instrument, and in an action upon it, it is not competent for the party bound to deny the recital, notwithstanding what Lord Coke says on the matter of recital in Coke Littleton, 352; and a recital in instruments not under seal may be such as to be conclusive to the same extent . . By his contract in the instrument itself, a party is assuredly bound, and must fulfil it. But there is no authority to show that a party to the instrument would be estopped, in an action by the other party, not founded on the deed, and wholly collateral to it, to dispute the facts so admitted, though the recitals would certainly be evidence.’
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Prime Sight Ltd -v- Lavarello PC ([2013] WLR (D) 514, Bailii, [2013] UKPC 22, WLRD, [2014] 2 WLR 84, [2013] 4 All ER 659, [2014] 1 AC 436)
    (Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.

Carpenter v Buller; 29 Jul 1840

References: , [1840] EngR 840, (1840) 2 M & Rob 298, (1840) 174 ER 295 (A)
Links: Commonlii
This case is cited by:

  • Approved – Greer -v- Kettle HL ([1938] AC 156, 158 LT 433)
    A corporate borrower agreed to repay £250,000 with interest and to charge certain specified shares in another company as security. A guarantee was procured from another company, Parent Trust. The deed of guarantee recited that the lender had . .
  • Appeal from – Carpenter -v- Buller (, Commonlii, [1841] EngR 552, (1841) 8 M & W 209, (1841) 151 ER 1013)
    The defence to an action of trespass was that the defendant was seised of the land in question. He produced a deed, made between himself, the plaintiff and a third party, in which this was stated to be the case
    Held: The plaintiff was not . .

Freeman And Another, Assignees of William Broadbent v Cooke; 1 Jul 1848

References: (1848) 2 Exch 554, 6 Dow & L 187, [1843-60] All ER Rep 185, [1848] EngR 687, (1848) 154 ER 652
Links: Commonlii
Where a party creates a belief in another’s mind, and causes the other to act upon that belief, he will not in subsequent court proceedings be heard to deny that belief: ‘a party who negigently of culpably stands by and allows another to contract on the faith of a fact which he can contradict, cannot afterwards dispoute that fact in an action against the party who he has himself assisted in deceiving.’
This case is cited by:

  • Applied – Smith -v- Hughes QBD ((1871) LR 6 QB 597, Hamlyn)
    If a party so conducts himself as to allow another to to believe that he was assenting to the terms proposed by the other, and acting upon that belief, and the other enters into the contract, the man so conducting himself is as bound as if he had . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 03-Mar-16 Ref: 188458

Horton v The Westminster Improvement Commissioners; 2 Jun 1852

References: [1852] EngR 658, (1853) 7 Exch 780, (1852) 155 ER 1165
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Baron Martin
The plaintiff was assignee of the defendants’ bond to A to pay £10,000. It recited that the defendants had borrowed £5,000 from A for the purposes of carrying out works under the Westminster Improvement Acts 1845 and 1847. The defendants pleaded that they had not borrowed any money from A. The underlying facts, according to the defendants, were that the defendants owed money to B and C, who were induced by A into agreeing that the defendants should issue the bond to A in lieu of payment to themselves. B and C then discovered that they were the victim of a scam and requested the defendants not to pay the bond. In short, the parties to the bond, A and the defendants, both knew when it was issued that the recital about A having lent money to the defendants was false.
Held: The defendants were estopped from denying the truth of the facts stated.
Martin B said: ‘The meaning of estoppel is this – that the parties agreed, for the purpose of a particular transaction, to state certain facts as true; and that, so far as regards that transaction, there shall be no question about them.’
The position would be different if the statement had been made for the purpose of concealing an illegal contract, but that was not the case. Nor was it alleged that A had practised a fraud on the defendants. He was alleged to have deceived B and C, when they directed the defendants to give the bond to A, but that did not affect the validity of the bond.
This case cites:

  • See Also – Horton -v- The Westminster Improvement Commissioners ([1852] EngR 658, Commonlii, (1853) 7 Exch 780, (1852) 155 ER 1165)
    The plaintiff was assignee of the defendants’ bond to A to pay £10,000. It recited that the defendants had borrowed £5,000 from A for the purposes of carrying out works under the Westminster Improvement Acts 1845 and 1847. The defendants . .

This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Horton -v- The Westminster Improvement Commissioners ([1852] EngR 729, Commonlii, (1853) 7 Exch 911, (1852) 155 ER 1220)
    . .
  • See Also – Horton -v- The Westminster Improvement Commissioners ([1852] EngR 658, Commonlii, (1853) 7 Exch 780, (1852) 155 ER 1165)
    The plaintiff was assignee of the defendants’ bond to A to pay £10,000. It recited that the defendants had borrowed £5,000 from A for the purposes of carrying out works under the Westminster Improvement Acts 1845 and 1847. The defendants . .
  • Cited – Prime Sight Ltd -v- Lavarello PC ([2013] WLR (D) 514, Bailii, [2013] UKPC 22, WLRD, [2014] 2 WLR 84, [2013] 4 All ER 659, [2014] 1 AC 436)
    (Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.

M’Cance v The London And North Western Railway Company; 19 Nov 1861

References: [1861] EngR 967, (1861) 7 H & N 477, (1861) 158 ER 559
Links: Commonlii
In an action against a railway Company, the first count of the declaration alleged that the plaintiff employed the defendants to provide trucks for the carriage of the plaintiff’s horses, for hire to be paid by the plaintiff, in consideration whereof the defendants promised the plaintiff that the trucks should he reasonably fit and proper for the carriage of such horses Breach: that the defendants did not provide fit and proper trucks, whereby the plaritiff’s horses were injured. Second count that the defendants having received certain horses of the plaintiff to be carried by railway, in consequence of the defective state of the truck and the negligerice and want of care of the defendants, the plaintiffs horses weie injured. Plea: payment of 25l. into Court Replication damages ultra. At the trial, it appeared that when the plaintiff delivered the horses to the defendants, he signed at their request a declaration that the value of the horses (did not exceed 10l. per horse, and that, on consideration of the rate charged for their conveyance, he thereby agreed that the same were to be carried entirely at the ownet’s risk. In the course of the journey the horses were injured in consequence of the defective state of the truck in which they were carried. The horses were worth more than 10l each, and if taken at, their real value the damage sustained by the plaintiff was 65l, but if valued at 10l each the 25l. paid into Court covered the plaintiff’s claim. A verdict having been entered for the plantiff for 40l. on motion to enter the verdict for the defendants, the Court being at liberty to draw inferences of fact Held that the plaintiff having made a wilfully false statement as to the value of the horses for the purpose of inducing, and having thereby induced, the defendants to enter into the contract, was not at liberty to shew their real value, in order to obtain compensation above the amount paid into Court — Semble, that thedeclaration of the value of the horses formed no part of the contract, and that even if it were it did not render the contract a conditional contract –Also, that, the stipulation that the horses should he carried entirely at the owner’s risk was not unreasonable and void within the meaning of the 17 & 18 Vict. C 31.
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – M’Cance -v- The London And North Western Railway Company ([1864] EngR 595, Commonlii, (1864) 3 H & C 343, (1864) 159 ER 563)
    The plaintff contracted with the defendant for the transport of horses, understating their value. On their loss, the plaintiff sought their full value. The defendant had succeeded in limiting the award to the value stated.
    Held: Williams J . .

Horton v The Westminster Improvement Commissioners; 12 Jun 1852

References: [1852] EngR 729, (1853) 7 Exch 911, (1852) 155 ER 1220
Links: Commonlii
This case cites:

  • See Also – Horton -v- The Westminster Improvement Commissioners ([1852] EngR 658, Commonlii, (1853) 7 Exch 780, (1852) 155 ER 1165)
    The plaintiff was assignee of the defendants’ bond to A to pay £10,000. It recited that the defendants had borrowed £5,000 from A for the purposes of carrying out works under the Westminster Improvement Acts 1845 and 1847. The defendants . .

Laird v Birkenhead Railway Co; 22 Nov 1859

References: (1859) Johns 500, [1859] EngR 1021, (1859) 70 ER 519
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Page Wood V-C
The plaintiff applied to the defendant railway company for permission to construct and use a private branch line connecting with the railway company’s main line. Agreement was reached for the plaintiff to do so ‘on reasonable terms, which were to be afterwards settled.’ The plaintiff, acting on this agreement, constructed and used the branch line and for some two and a half years paid tolls at an agreed rate to the railway company. Agreement in principle was reached on the details of the plaintiff’s user of the branch line but a formal agreement was never signed. The railway company gave notice to the plaintiff to cease his user of the branch line.
Held: The railway company had allowed the plaintiff ‘to expend his money on the faith that he would be permitted to join their line on reasonable terms’ and that the tolls agreed upon and paid by the plaintiff for his past user must be assumed to represent reasonable terms. ‘It must’, said the Vice-Chancellor, ‘be inferred, from the nature of the transaction, that the privilege of using the line was not to be determinable.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another -v- Cobbe HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 55, Times, [2008] 35 EG 142, [2008] 31 EG 88, [2008] WTLR 1461, [2008] 1 WLR 1752, HL)
    The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
    Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
  • Cited – Hooper and Another -v- Oates CA (Bailii, [2013] EWCA Civ 91, [2013] 3 All ER 211, [2013] 1 P &CR DG22, [2013] 1 EGLR 93, [2014] 2 WLR 743, [2013] 9 EG 93, [2013] WLR(D) 72, [2013] 16 EG 108, [2014] Ch 287, WLRD)
    The parties had agreed for the purchase of land, but the buyer, Mr Oates, failed to complete. A notice to complete was served, and on non-compliance, the repudiation was accepted. It proved difficult to resell, and they suffered substantial losses. . .

Hoysted v Federal Commissioner of Taxation; 16 Dec 1921

References: (1921) 29 CLR 537, [1921] HCA 56
Links: Austlii
Coram: Knox CJ, Higgins and Starke JJ
High Court of Australia – Higgins J coined the term ‘issue estoppel’.
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Hoystead -v- Commissioner of Taxation PC ([1926] AC 155, [1925] All ER 56, (1926) 42 TLR 207, 67 ER 313)
    Lord Shaw: ‘In the opinion of their Lordships it is settled, first, that the admission of a fact fundamental to the decision arrived at cannot be withdrawn and a fresh litigation started, with a view of obtaining another judgment upon a different . .
  • Cited – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd -v- Zodiac Seats UK Ltd SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 46, [2013] 3 WLR 299, [2014] 1 AC 160, [2013] WLR(D) 265, [2013] RPC 29, [2013] 4 All ER 715, Baili Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2010/0013, SC Summary, SC)
    Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding £49,000,000 for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had . .