(Hong Kong) An oral agreement to surrender a lease of less than three years might not defeat a rent arrears claim under an estoppel.
An unenforceable agreement can be used as a defence in an action brought by another party only if raising that defence does not amount to de facto enforcement of the oral contract. Their Lordships stated that they did not accept: ‘in its unqualified form the proposition that … an oral agreement is available as a defence in the same way and to the same extent as any enforceable contract. If due regard is to be paid to the statute, the question in any given case must be whether the party who relies on the oral agreement is in substance seeking to enforce it. If he is so seeking, it matters not whether he happens to be plaintiff or defendant in the proceedings or whether, as a matter of formal pleading, he is seeking to enforce the oral agreement by way of claim, defence, counterclaim or otherwise … In any such case due effect must be given to the statute.’
Sir Christopher Slade
Ind Summary 12-Apr-1993, Gazette 21-Apr-1993, [1993] AC 552, [1993] UKPC 9, [1994] ANZ Conv R 72, [1993] 2 All ER 459, [1993] 2 WLR 786
Bailii
Australia
Citing:
Cited – Jenkin R Lewis and Son Ltd v Kerman CA 1970
On the facts, an agreement between landlord and tenant for an increase in the rent did not result in a surrender of the current lease and grant of a new one.
Russell LJ summarised a set of circumstances in which, on well-established . .
Cited by:
Cited – Yaxley 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.89694
