E – Estoppel
10/4/24
HEYES v HOLT [2024] EWHC 779 (Ch)
Contains a useful summary of principles to be applied on summary judgment applications. The claim, which was to establish an interest in property on the basis of proprietary estoppel, was weak but not so weak as to have no real prospect of success. Considers principles to be applied in making a conditional order for payment of money into court or provision of security
5/10/23
VASAMI v HACK [2023] EWHC 2431 (Ch)
Considers principles of proprietary estoppel [34]. On the facts, the defendant to a claim for possession of a farm had not established a right to possession on the basis of alleged promises by his uncle that the defendant could live at the farm after his uncle’s days [34].
12/6/20
UMRISH LTD v GILL [2020] EWHC 1513 (Ch)
The court rejected defences to a claim on personal guarantees that the guarantees had not been delivered, and that the claimant was estopped from enforcing the guarantees by having said they would not be enforced. There had been sufficient unconditional delivery by sending a scanned copy of the guarantor’s signature [85]. The estoppel argument failed on the facts but the court also doubted that promissory estoppel can be relied on in relation to conduct before there is a legal relationship between the promisor and promisee [101].
21/2/20
WALLIS TRADING INC v AIR TANZANIA COMPANY LTD [2020] EWHC 339 (Comm)
The defendant company was contractually estopped from contesting the validity of an aircraft lease [79]. In any event an allegation that a director entered into the lease otherwise than in good faith was not made out [95]. The director had ostensible authority to enter into the lease [102]. The lease was within the company’s powers and the claimant had no notice of any abuse of power by the company’s board so the lease was enforceable (applying Rolled Steel Products, 1986) [107].
2/10/19
NATIXIS SA v MAREX FINANCIAL [2019] EWHC 2549 (Comm)
The claimant succeeded in a claim for damages for the defendant’s breach of contract in providing forged warehouse receipts in connection with repo transactions for the purchase of nickel. The court considered principles of common mistake [181], bailment [227], collateral contracts [251], estoppel [280], negligence [289], the impact of disclaimers [353], contributory negligence [445], the court’s approach to clauses negativing duties and liabilities [481], the reasonableness test under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 [513] and mitigation [538].
30/7/19
TINKLER v THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE & CUSTOMS [2019] EWCA Civ 1393
Summarises principles for establishing estoppel by convention [54].
23/8/17
WEST END COMMERCIAL LIMITED v LONDON TROCADERO (2015) LLP [2017] EWHC 2175 (Ch)
The court refused to continue an interim injunction restraining termination of a licence to occupy premises. On the current state of the law, (set out in Thorner v Major, 2009) proprietary estoppel could not be relied upon to support a claim to a contractual licence which did not confer a proprietary interest in property. Nor had detriment been made out on the facts of the case. Damages would also have been an adequate remedy.
21/12/15
RIVERTRADE LTD v EMG FINANCE LTD [2015] EWCA Civ 1295
The trial judge had rightly interpreted an agreement that a loan was to be secured by all the monies payable under a contract between the defendant borrower and a third party, and not merely by 35% of those monies. Applying principles of estoppel by convention (as explained in ING Bank v Ros Roca, 2012) on the facts any company in the same group as the defendant proceeded on a common assumption that the claimant would have effective security on all the moneys payable under the contract with the third party.
9/10/15
DIXON v BLINDLEY HEATH INVESTMENTS LTD [2015] EWCA Civ 1023
Estoppel by convention was made out and prevented the parties denying the existence of rights of pre-emption in relation to shares. The estoppel could operate even if forgetfulness was the cause of the mistaken belief.
14/5/15
DAVIES v DAVIES [2015] EWHC 1384 (Ch)
Considers principles of proprietary estoppel in the context of promises found to have been made by the claimant’s father that the claimant would inherit a farm.
3/10/14
CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL v STICHTING VESTIA GROEP [2014] EWHC 3103 (Comm)
Although the defendant lacked capacity to enter into certain swap transactions, warranties given in the ISDA Master Agreement which it signed created a contractual estoppel preventing it from disputing its liability, alternatively the claimant was entitled to damages for breach of the warranties.
8/4/14
BARCLAYS BANK PLC v SVIZERA HOLDINGS BV [2014] EWHC 1020 (Comm)
The relationship between the parties as
defined in agreed facility documents excluded any advisory relationship or fiduciary
duty on the part of the bank and gave rise to a contractual estoppel precluding
the defendant from alleging that it had relied on any advice from the bank
[70]. No assumption of responsibility
could be inferred. The defendant had
entered into the agreement on the basis of its own judgment. On the evidence the bank had not been
required to obtain a currency swap for the defendant as a condition precedent
to the facility agreement, the bank had not made any representation that it
would obtain the swap and the defendant had not relied on any such
representation. Nor had there been any
collateral warranty that the swap would be obtained.
9/7/13
PRIME SIGHT LIMITED v LAVARELLO [2013] UKPC 22, [2014] 2 WLR 84
A trustee in bankruptcy was estopped by the
terms of a deed containing a contract of sale, from claiming that the purchase
price had not been paid.
5/6/13
SHORELINE HOUSING PARTNERSHIP LTD v MEARS LTD [2013] EWCA Civ 639
It was inappropriate to strike out the
claimant’s allegation that there was an estoppel by convention, or by
representation, which prevented the defendant from denying that payments under
a contract were to be at rates other than those specified in the contract. The allegation required a factual enquiry and
the claimant had a sufficient prospect of succeeding in its argument that an
entire agreement clause in the contract did not prevent it from relying on the
estoppel.
18/5/12
SHAKER v VISAJET GROUP HOLDING SA [2012] EWHC 1329 (Comm)
If a letter of intent had been enforceable, an
amendment acknowledging that parties had used good faith and reasonable
endeavours to try to agree documents gave rise to a contractual estoppel
preventing one asserting that the other had breached that obligation.
© Copyright 2015 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer