swarb.co.

uk Law Forum Law Books Recent case law:

NEC Display Solutions Europe -vOHMI - C More Entertainment (See More) | Gay -v- Sophos Plc | Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen -vAfasia Knits Deutschland (Customs Union) | Ziolkowski and others -vLand Berlin (European Citizenship) French Text | Korashi -v- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board (Victimisation Discrimination : Whistleblowing) | Castle and Others -v- Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis | Hughes -v- The Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd | Rehman -vChamberlain and Another | Salford NHS Primary Care Trust -v- Smith (Disability Discrimination) | Harborne Road Nominees Ltd -v- Karvaski and Another

Home | lawindexpro | law-bytes | law-index | statutes | Law Books | Discuss Law | lipcases | Contact Us

Web

www.swarb.co.uk

Comprehensive information on no win no fee claims and the compensation process.

Estoppel - 1985- 1989

Estoppel, in its various forms including proprietory and equitable estoppels The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases. This page lists 14 cases, and was prepared on 16 July 2011. The August Leonhardt [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep 28 1985 CA Kerr LJ Estoppel 1 Citers For an estoppel by convention, a common understanding must actually be communicated by one party to the other: "All estoppels must involve some statement or conduct by the party alleged [to be estoppel on which the alleged representee was entitled] to rely and did rely. In this

From lawindexpro

Adverts from Google:

Employment case law:

Gay -v- Sophos Plc | Korashi -vAbertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board (Victimisation Discrimination : Whistleblowing) | Hughes -v- The Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd | Salford NHS Primary Care Trust -vSmith (Disability Discrimination) | Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHA Trust -v- Watkinson (Victimisation Discrimination : Whistleblowing) | Mattu -v- The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust | Autoclenz Ltd -v- Belcher and Others | Wincanton Plc -v- Atkinson and Another (Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of Dismissal) |

Duncombe and Others -v- Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (No 2) | Shields Automotive Ltd -v- Greig (Practice and Procedure : Costs)

From lawindexpro

sense all estoppels may be regarded as requiring some manifest representation which crosses the line between representor and representee, either by statement or conduct." Peyman -v- Lanjani [1985] 1 Ch 457; [1985] CL 457 1985 Estoppel, Landlord and Tenant Casemap CA Application was made for consent to 1 Cites Stephenson assign a lease. The court was asked 1 Citers LJ, May LJ whether or not the purchaser of a leasehold interest in a property, who had elected to affirm the contract despite a repudiatory breach by the vendor, could be held to his election if, when he made it, he was aware of facts which entitled him to rescind the contract, but had no knowledge that those facts gave him the right in law to rescind. Held: For the purposes of the common law doctrine of election, where a person has an unrestricted choice between two mutually inconsistent courses of action which affect his rights, knowledge of the right to elect is a pre-condition of making an effective election, and there can be no effective election unless the person making it knows his legal rights as well as the facts giving rise to those rights. An estoppel must be based upon an informed choice, but: "When a party has legal advice, he will be more easily presumed to know the law and evidence or special circumstances may be required to rebut the presumption." May LJ said: ""The next feature of the doctrine of election in these cases which in my opinion is important is that when the person entitled to make the choice does so one way or the other, and this has been communicated to the other party to the contract, then the choice becomes

irrevocable even though, if and when the first person seeks to change his mind, the second cannot show that he has altered his position in any way. This being so, I do not think that a party to a contract can realistically or sensibly be held to have made this irrevocable choice between rescission and affirmation unless he has actual knowledge not only of the facts of the serious breach of the contract by the other party which is the pre-condition of his right to choose, but also of the fact that in the circumstances which exist he does have that right to make that choice which the law gives him." Stephenson LJ said: "I therefore feel free to follow the decision of this court in Leathley v John Fowler & Co Ltd [1946] KB 579 and to hold that knowledge of the facts which give rise to the right to rescind is not enough to prevent the plaintiff from exercising that right, but he must also know that the law gives him that right yet choose with that knowledge not to exercise it." The Sennar (No 2) [1985] 1 WLR 490 1985 HL Lord Brandon Litigation Practice, Estoppel Casemap The Henderson v Henderson principle 1 Cites should only be applied where it is clear (i) that the decision or determination relied on was made by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction and (ii) the decision upon the issue later sought to be raised is a final and binding decision on the merits.

The Indian Endurance [1987] AC 878 1986 HL Lord Steyn Estoppel Casemap The House considerd how an estoppel 1 Citers by convention arose: "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 either shared by them both or made by one and acquiesced in by the other. The effect of an estoppel by convention is to preclude a party from denying the assumed facts or law if it would be unjust to allow him to go back on the assumption: K. Lokumal & Sons (London) Ltd. v. Lotte Shipping Co. Pte. Ltd. [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 28; Norwegian American Cruises A/S v. Paul Mundy Ltd. [1988] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 343; Treitel, The Law of Contract, 9th ed. (1995), pp. 112-113. It is not enough that each of the two 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." Watson -v- Goldsborough [1986] 1 EGLR 265 1986 CA Estoppel, Landlord and Tenant Casemap The representative of an angling club 1 Citers 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 should be satisfied by the grant of a lease on the terms of the draft.

Willis and Son -v- Willis [1986] 1 EGLR 62 1986 Estoppel, Trusts Casemap CA The appellants had resisted giving a Parker LJ, flat, claiming a promissory estoppel Sir John based on the respondents having more Donaldson than once said that the appellants MR could live in the premises rent free for as long as they needed. The appellants said that some 1339.90 had been spent relying upon that promise. The

appellants produced a letter given to their solicitor to support the particulars. The writer said he had carried out the works. He no longer had details, but could confirm the details from his ledgers. The letter was found to be a complete fiction. He had done no work, had no ledgers and had not been paid. Both appellants knew that it was wholly false. Held: If the falsity of the Robins' letter had not been discovered it would have been relied upon throughout the proceedings. "I find it difficult to see how there could be any more serious conduct than that. When a party comes to the Court and seeks to obtain from it equitable relief, it is accepted, as I have said, that he must come with clean hands. I accept also, as was submitted on behalf of the appellants, that not every item of misconduct can possibly be sufficient to deprive a party who seeks equity from being granted the relief he seeks. Some misconduct may be trivial. But when a party acts as these parties have done and Joanna Willis must be regarded as having been concerned in this, albeit indirectly, in as much as the document was put forward on behalf of both the appellants it seems to be impossible for this Court to do other than to take the most serious view of it and to decline to grant equitable relief even if, to which I say nothing because it does not arise on the view I take of this case, they would otherwise have been so entitled." (Sir John Donaldson MR) "The conduct of the appellants which has been disclosed in this case was such that no Court could, in my judgment, possibly grant equitable relief." and "When a person seeks the aid of the Court to obtain the Court's

assistance, via the principles of equity, to override somebody's strict legal rights, it is clearly a case for the application of the maxim, as indeed is accepted by the appellants, "that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands"." In re Basham dec'd; Basham -v- Basham [1986] 1 WLR 1498; [1987] 1 All ER 405 1986 Edward Nugee QC Wills and Probate, Estoppel Casemap The claimant and her husband had helped her mother and her stepfather 1 Citers 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 her stepfather's death she and her husband lived near the cottage to which her stepfather had moved (but never lived in the cottage). The claimant was told by her stepfather that 'she would lose nothing' by her help and (a few days before his death) that she was to have the cottage. The deputy judge held that she was entitled, by proprietary estoppel, to the whole of the estate of her stepfather (who died intestate). He rejected the submission that the principle could not extend beyond cases where the claimant already had enjoyment of an identified item of property. Edward Nugee QC said: "In the present case it is in my judgment clearly established by the evidence, first, that the plaintiff had a belief at all material times that she was going to receive both Rosslyn and the remainder of the deceased's property on his death, and secondly, that this belief was encouraged by the deceased . . I am satisfied that the deceased encouraged the plaintiff in

the belief that all the property he possessed at the date of his death would pass to her." and "The plaintiff relies on proprietary estoppel, the principle of which, in its broadest form, may be stated as follows: where one person, A, has acted to his detriment on the faith of a belief, which was known to and encouraged by another person, B, that he either has or is going to be given a right in or over B's property, B cannot insist on his strict legal rights if to do so would be inconsistent with A's belief." and "But in my judgment, at all events where the belief is that A is going to be given a right in the future, it is properly to be regarded as giving rise to a species of constructive trust, which is the concept employed by a court of equity to prevent a person from relying on his legal rights where it would be unconscionable for him to do so." Attorney General of Hong Kong -v- Humphreys Estate (Queen's Gardens) Ltd [1987] 1 AC 114 1987 Land, Commonwealth, Estoppel PC 1 Cites An agreement in principle was Lord marked "subject to contract". The 1 Citers Templeman 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 was allowed to and did take possession of the flats and spent money upon them and moved some civil servants into them, the Crown accordingly disposing of the premises where those civil servants had previously resided. On the other side of the bargain, the Government allowed the Group to

enter the Crown land and to demolish buildings upon it. However, the requisite forms of documents were never executed Held: Lord Templeman said: "The government acted in the hope that a voluntary agreement in principle expressly made 'subject to contract' and therefore not binding, would eventually be followed by the achievement of legal relationships in the form of grants and transfers of property. It is possible but unlikely that in circumstances at present unforeseeable a party to negotiations set out in a document expressed to be 'subject to contract' would be able to satisfy the court that the parties had subsequently agreed to convert the document into a contract or that some form of estoppel had arisen to prevent both parties from refusing to proceed with the transactions envisaged by the document." Walton Stores (Interstate) Limited -v- Maher [1988] 164 CLR 387 1988 Estoppel, Commonwealth Casemap (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.

The Vistafjord [1988] 2 Lloyd's Rep 343 1988 CA Bingham LJ Estoppel Casemap 1 Citers 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" Re State of Norway's Application (No 2) [1988] 3 WLR 603 1988 Estoppel CA 1 Cites The basic requirement for an issue May LJ, estoppel to arise was that "the earlier 1 Citers Balcombe determination relied on as raising an LJ issue estoppel shall have been fundamental to the decision first arrived at". The Board did not accept that an issue estoppel is impossible if the first decision could not be appealed. Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 Norwegian American Cruises A/S (formerly Norwegian American Lines A/S) -v- Paul Munday Ltd (The "Vistafjord") [1988] 2 Lloyds Rep 343 1988 Contract, Estoppel Casemap A party may be precluded by an estoppel by convention from raising a 1 Citers contention contrary to a common assumption of fact or law (which could include the validity of a notice) upon which they have acted.

Re State of Norway's Application (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 723 1989 Estoppel HL Lord Goff of Chieveley Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers

Shelley -v- United Artists Corporation Limited (1989) 60 P&CR 241; [1990] EGLR 103 1989 CA Dillon Russell Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel Casemap There was a subletting arrangement. 1 Citers United Artists, who were the subtenant's competent landlord under Part

and II of the 1954 Act, served a notice on Butlerthe tenant, and then a further notice on Sloss LJJ the head landlord. The result of second notice was that United Artists ceased to be the competent landlord of the tenant. The tenant did not know, and served a Counter-Notice on, and mistakenly issued proceedings against United Artists. They should have targeted the head landlord, who was now the competent landlord. United Artists then took a fresh over-riding lease, as a result of which they became, once again, the competent landlord of the tenant. Held: United Artists were estopped from denying that they were the competent landlord at the time the tenant served the notice and issued the proceedings, partly because they were under an obligation to tell the tenant that they had ceased to be the competent landlord, and partly because they must have appreciated that the tenant was labouring under a misapprehension. Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 All information on this site is in general and summary form only. The content of any page on this site may be out of date and or incomplete, and you should not not rely directly upon it. Take direct professional legal advice which reflects your own particular situation. Home | lawindexpro | law-index | law-bytes | acts | Law Books | Discuss Law | Contact David Swarbrick lawindexpro | Two Doves Counselling | Jigsaw Jo | Faulty Flipper External Sites: wrigleyclaimon Media case law:
HM Attorney General -v- MGN Ltd and Another | Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and Others -v- British Telecommunications Plc | Al Rawi and Others -v- The Security Service and Others | In re A (A Minor) | Goodwin v- NGN Ltd and VBN | Goodwin -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd | CTB -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another (3) | CTB -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd and Thomas (2) | TSE and ELP -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd | CTB -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another (1)

From lawindexpro

Advertisement: Wrigley Claydon - Solicitors in Oldham and Todmorden Wrigley Claydon are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. 29-33 Union Street Oldham OL1 1HH 0161 624 6811 www.wrigleyclaydon.com email Wrigley Claydon
Copyright and Database Rights: David Swarbrick 2009