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’
Judges:
Bingham LJ
Citations:
[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 343
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Smithkline 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Estoppel
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.242626