Estoppel—common law and equitable

The Practice Notes in this subtopic are concerned with pleading an estoppel as a defence (and, on limited occasion, as a basis for a cause of action) but do not include pleading defences of cause of action estoppel or issue estoppel (sometimes known as collateral estoppel or judicial estoppel or estoppel by record) which are dealt with in: The doctrine of res judicata—overview.

The doctrine of estoppel

The basic concept of an estoppel is that where a person (A) has caused another (B) to act on the basis of a particular state of affairs, A is prevented from going back on the words or conduct which led B to act on that basis, if certain conditions are satisfied. In such cases A is estopped (ie 'stopped') from resiling from, or denying, the existence of that particular state of affairs.

The following dicta of Sir Anthony Mann in Jones v Lydon, citing in turn Lord Burrows in Tinkler v HMRC, and with particular reference to the representation estoppels, is of assistance:

‘66. […] The essence of an estoppel is that a party is forced to accept a legal

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with UU��ֱ�� or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

Summary judgment on defamation defence of fair and accurate reporting (Iqbal v Geo)

TMT analysis: The Court of Appeal granted summary judgment in favour of the defendant, Geo TV Ltd (Geo), overturning the High Court decision. The court held that a defence against defamation under section 15 of the Defamation Act 1996 (DA 1996) (which relates to the publication of fair and accurate report of proceedings at a public meeting) was capable of summary determination. Written by Sarah Ellington, partner at Watson Farley & Williams LLP.

Shareholder representative claims under CPR 19.8 struck out on appeal (Wirral v Indivior)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision to strike out a securities representative claim, holding that the court has an ‘unfettered discretion’ to decide when to permit representative claims under CPR 19.8. The judgment provides detailed guidance on the court’s approach to group claims, confirming there is no hierarchy for the different procedural approaches. Where alternative options are available, the court must assess the advantages and disadvantages of each. In particular, it must try to strike a fair balance between the progress of claimant and defendant issues, to avoid conferring an unfair procedural advantage on either party. The decision is also of interest for its analysis of the relevance of litigation funding. If the availability of funding is to be factored into an assessment of the merits of different procedural options, litigation funders must provide ‘cogent and coherent’ explanations of their funding decisions. Written by Harriet Campbell, senior knowledge lawyer at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP.

Court construes contractual restrictions on assignment and considers champerty in refusing substitution of a claimant (Tactus Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) v Jordan)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Commercial Court dismissed an application to substitute a party for the existing claimant, holding that the purported assignment of rights was ineffective due to contractual restrictions and void for champerty. The court narrowly construed the assignment clause in the contract, finding Chillblast Ltd, the applicant, did not qualify as a permitted assignee. It also ruled Chillblast lacked a legitimate interest to justify the assignment. The judgment clarifies that the CPR 19.2(4) requirements for party substitution are disjunctive and applies a balance of probabilities test to meeting them. This case offers significant guidance on interpreting anti-assignment clauses, the modern application of champerty rules, and ‘change of party’ procedural requirements in commercial litigation. Written by the Dispute Resolution team at UU��ֱ��.

Ministry of Justice publishes summary of responses to Open Justice Call for Evidence

The Ministry of Justice has published a summary of responses to its Call for Evidence on 'Open Justice: the way forward', which was issued on 11 May 2023. The document outlines feedback from 131 respondents across various stakeholder groups. Key themes include the reaffirmation of the open justice principle, calls for improved access to court listings and documents and discussions on the implications of remote observation and livestreaming of court proceedings. Respondents emphasised the need for greater transparency in the Single Justice Procedure and supported the centralisation of judgment publications. The summary also highlights the importance of enhancing public understanding of the justice system and making court information available in machine-readable formats.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News

Practice notes

Precedents

Q&As

UU��ֱ��