½Û×ÓÊÓƵ

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 ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

MoJ publishes annual report and accounts for 2023-2024

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has released its annual report and accounts for the financial year 2023-2024 on 14 November 2024. This comprehensive document outlines the department's activities, performance against strategic objectives, governance structures and resource utilisation for the year ending 31 March 2024. Prepared in accordance with HM Treasury's Government Financial Reporting Manual, the report consolidates results from the core department, executive agencies and relevant arm's length bodies.

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—14 November 2024

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes the minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee’s meeting of 4 October 2024 and the Supreme Court decision in Unite the Union v Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive T/A Nexus (rectification); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

Misrepresentation, implied terms and settlement agreements (Pentagon Food Group Ltd v B Cadman Ltd)

Dispute Resolution analysis: Pentagon Food Group Ltd v B Cadman Ltd centred on the interpretation and alleged breach of a settlement agreement concluded between the parties in relation to a previous set of proceedings. In this judgment, which serves as a helpful reference for practitioners on several legal issues, the High Court considered whether misrepresentations contained in a party’s pleadings may be actionable, as well as the circumstances in which representations, either express or implied, made during the course of a mediation could form the basis of a claim in misrepresentation, in the absence of a finding of unambiguous impropriety. The court also considered the test for implication of terms into the settlement agreement, and the law applicable to the construction of express contractual terms, ultimately finding the defendant to be liable for breach of an express and/or implied term of the settlement agreement, and in misrepresentation for statements made during the course of the mediation which led to the conclusion thereof. Written by Emily Lodge, associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.

Court of Appeal clarifies correct approach to application of liability caps when calculating quantum in contractual disputes (Topalsson GmbH v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd)

TMT analysis: This case centres around the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of a software services agreement, specifically the wording around limitation of liability. In particular, the court considered three main questions for the purposes of calculating quantum—the amount to which the contractual liability cap should be applied; whether the liability cap should be applied after considering set-off, or before; and whether the cap covers contractual interest. The court held that the cap should be applied to the total liability owed by each party to the other, separately, and not to the amount of both parties’ liability added together. Secondly, the court clarified that the cap should be applied before making adjustments for set-off. Thirdly, interest did not fall within the cap on the basis of an express term of the agreement stating that interest is the sole and substantial remedy for late payment (and is therefore separate). On the basis of its conclusions above, the court determined that total liability amounted to €4.2m, and not €5m as the High Court had previously established. Written by Marija Nonkovic, associate at Kemp IT Law LLP.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Where are misrepresentations made? Jurisdictional traps for the unwary (Bellmare Holdings Ltd v Wells)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has provided concise guidance as to how misrepresentation should be analysed when considering jurisdictional gateways. Under Article 5(3) of the Lugano Convention, in negligent misstatement cases, the place of the event giving rise to damage is normally

Negligence—key elements to establish a negligence claim

Negligence—key elements to establish a negligence claimThis Practice Note outlines the key elements for establishing a claim in negligence. For specific guidance on negligence in the context of company/parent company liability, banks and in professional negligence cases, see:•Practice Note: Tortious

Unfair prejudice—Court of Appeal consideration of application to strike out parts of a petition (Zedra

Dispute Resolution analysis: A petitioner claiming unfair prejudice is entitled to rely on breaches by the directors of their fiduciary and statutory duties to the company as conduct of the affairs of the company which was unfairly prejudicial to the petitioner. In this case, Zedra (the petitioner)

The doctrine of res judicata

The doctrine of res judicataWhat is a res judicata?A res judicata is a decision given by a judge or tribunal with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which disposes, with finality, of a matter decided so that it cannot be re-litigated by those bound by the judgment, except on
Where are misrepresentations made? Jurisdictional traps for the unwary (Bellmare Holdings Ltd v Wells)

Where are misrepresentations made? Jurisdictional traps for the unwary (Bellmare Holdings Ltd v Wells)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has provided concise guidance as to how misrepresentation should be analysed when considering jurisdictional gateways. Under Article 5(3) of the Lugano Convention, in negligent misstatement cases, the place of the event giving rise to damage is normally

Negligence—key elements to establish a negligence claim

Negligence—key elements to establish a negligence claim

Negligence—key elements to establish a negligence claimThis Practice Note outlines the key elements for establishing a claim in negligence. For specific guidance on negligence in the context of company/parent company liability, banks and in professional negligence cases, see:•Practice Note: Tortious

Unfair prejudice—Court of Appeal consideration of application to strike out parts of a petition (Zedra

Unfair prejudice—Court of Appeal consideration of application to strike out parts of a petition (Zedra

Dispute Resolution analysis: A petitioner claiming unfair prejudice is entitled to rely on breaches by the directors of their fiduciary and statutory duties to the company as conduct of the affairs of the company which was unfairly prejudicial to the petitioner. In this case, Zedra (the petitioner)

The doctrine of res judicata

The doctrine of res judicata

The doctrine of res judicataWhat is a res judicata?A res judicata is a decision given by a judge or tribunal with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which disposes, with finality, of a matter decided so that it cannot be re-litigated by those bound by the judgment, except on