Equitable Estoppel
• Responds to unconscionable conduct
o Beyond smth that someone w/ good conscience would do
• Responds the injustice following a person unconscionable reneging on gratuitous promise
o Promise not supported by sufficient consideration moving from promisor to promisee
o There's nothing stopping the abandonment of a promise w/o consideration no matter how unjust
o Equitable estoppel stops this
• Person is 'estopped' from going back on their word
Equity
• Equitable principles and remedies and common law principles and remedies come from diff legal traditions of judge made laws
• Common law is stricter and more certain
• Equity is more discretionary and offers a wider range of remedies
• Aus courts apply both in modern cases
Common law estoppel
• May contrast equitable estoppel
o Common law estoppel by conduct/common law estoppel in pais
• Prevents person from unjustly departing from assumption or representation of past or existing fact that other party relied upon to their detriment
o Thompson v Palmer (1933) 49 CLR 507, 547 - Dixson J
• Rule of evi not cause of action
o Precludes a person denying what they have represented
o Helps form the factual foundation for an action (still isn't cause of action)
• If estoppel relates to existence of contract, legal r/s is ascertained by ref to terms of contract assumed to exist
o If in assumed state estoppel is raised, cause of action may be enforced
o Legal obligation is assumed contract
• Doesn't make parties comply with intentions or promises
Development of doctrine of equitable estoppel
Promissory estoppel
• Party to a contract couldn't insist on certain rights under the contract
o Promissory estoppel
, o Denning J in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130
• His version estopped party from reneging on promise already made
• Binds a person who induces another act on basis of expectation or assumption induced by promise
• High Trees drew upon two cases
o Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439
• Lord Cairns - Rule of equity = IF parties enter into contract then negotiate, one party is led to suppose strict rights under contract
won't be enforced or be suspended, THEN other party can't seek to enforce those same rights (it would be inequitable)
o Birmingham & District Land Co v London and North Western Railway Co (1888) 40 Ch D 268
• Bowen LJ interpreted Hughes principle = where party A induced party B by conduct to believe rights under contract won't be
enforced or will be suspended for a time, equity won't let A enforce those rights till both parties are not longer in same position as
before
o Both were independent and held that in equity a party could not insist on certain rights under the contract
• Formed basis of dev of doctrine of promissory estoppel by Denning J
• Explained principle more fully in Combe v Combe
• It was limited
o Defensive equity
• Shield not sword
o Only used to prevent promisor from acting inconsistently with the promise
• Confirmed as part of Aus law in Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406
• Responds to unconscionable conduct
o Beyond smth that someone w/ good conscience would do
• Responds the injustice following a person unconscionable reneging on gratuitous promise
o Promise not supported by sufficient consideration moving from promisor to promisee
o There's nothing stopping the abandonment of a promise w/o consideration no matter how unjust
o Equitable estoppel stops this
• Person is 'estopped' from going back on their word
Equity
• Equitable principles and remedies and common law principles and remedies come from diff legal traditions of judge made laws
• Common law is stricter and more certain
• Equity is more discretionary and offers a wider range of remedies
• Aus courts apply both in modern cases
Common law estoppel
• May contrast equitable estoppel
o Common law estoppel by conduct/common law estoppel in pais
• Prevents person from unjustly departing from assumption or representation of past or existing fact that other party relied upon to their detriment
o Thompson v Palmer (1933) 49 CLR 507, 547 - Dixson J
• Rule of evi not cause of action
o Precludes a person denying what they have represented
o Helps form the factual foundation for an action (still isn't cause of action)
• If estoppel relates to existence of contract, legal r/s is ascertained by ref to terms of contract assumed to exist
o If in assumed state estoppel is raised, cause of action may be enforced
o Legal obligation is assumed contract
• Doesn't make parties comply with intentions or promises
Development of doctrine of equitable estoppel
Promissory estoppel
• Party to a contract couldn't insist on certain rights under the contract
o Promissory estoppel
, o Denning J in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130
• His version estopped party from reneging on promise already made
• Binds a person who induces another act on basis of expectation or assumption induced by promise
• High Trees drew upon two cases
o Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439
• Lord Cairns - Rule of equity = IF parties enter into contract then negotiate, one party is led to suppose strict rights under contract
won't be enforced or be suspended, THEN other party can't seek to enforce those same rights (it would be inequitable)
o Birmingham & District Land Co v London and North Western Railway Co (1888) 40 Ch D 268
• Bowen LJ interpreted Hughes principle = where party A induced party B by conduct to believe rights under contract won't be
enforced or will be suspended for a time, equity won't let A enforce those rights till both parties are not longer in same position as
before
o Both were independent and held that in equity a party could not insist on certain rights under the contract
• Formed basis of dev of doctrine of promissory estoppel by Denning J
• Explained principle more fully in Combe v Combe
• It was limited
o Defensive equity
• Shield not sword
o Only used to prevent promisor from acting inconsistently with the promise
• Confirmed as part of Aus law in Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406
