Equitable Defences

Question 1

What is Estoppel derived from

Answer 1

The French word Estope derived from a Latin word stopper which all means stop

Question 2

What are the variants of Estoppel ?

Answer 2

1) Primary Estoppel
2) Proprietary Estoppel

Question 3

What is promissory Estoppel ??

Answer 3

It operates when a party to a contract is estoppel from reneging on the promise where the other party has altered his position in reliance on that promise

Question 4

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway what are the facts of this case

Answer 4

Thomas Hughes owned property leased to the Railway Company at 216 Euston Road. Under the lease, Hughes was entitled to compel the tenant to repair the building within six months of notice. Notice was given on 22 October 1874 from which the tenants had until 22 April to finish the repairs. On 28 November, the tenant railway company sent a letter proposing that Hughes purchase the tenant’s leasehold interest. Negotiations began but later broke down, at which point the landlord demanded the repair of the building from 6 months since the original notice. The tenant claimed he should have had 6 months from the time the negotiations broke down, based on promissory estoppel.

The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal. It ruled that with the initiation of the negotiations there was an implied promise by the landlord not to enforce their strict legal rights with respect to the time limit on the repairs, and the tenant acted on this promise to their detriment. Lord Cairns LC gave the lead judgment, with which Lords O’Hagan, Selborne, Blackburn and Gordon concurred.

Question 5

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co [1877] is a House of Lords case considered unremarkable for many years until it was resurrected in 1947 by Lord Denning in the case of what??

Answer 5

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd

Question 6

What happened in the case of of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd

Answer 6

High Trees House Ltd leased a block of flats in Battersea, London from Central London Property Trust Ltd. The agreement was made in 1937 and specified an annual ground rent of £2,500. The outbreak of World War II in September 1939 led to a downturn in the rental market. High Trees struggled to find tenants for the property and approached Central London Property Trust in January 1940 to request that the rent be lowered. A reduction to £1,250 per year was agreed in writing, though the duration was not specified and no consideration was provided.

By 1945, the building was returning to full occupancy. On 21 September 1945, Central London Property wrote to High Trees to request a return to the full rent of £2,500 and claiming arrears of £7,916 for the period since 1940. They then brought a test action to recover part of the debt for the two quarters which had elapsed since June 1945.

The court reviewed the past case law, especially Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439, where the House of Lords had held that parties should be prevented from going back on a promise to waive certain rights. Denning J stated that the cases showed that a promise which the promisor knew was going to be acted on by the person to whom it was made was enforceable despite a lack of consideration. The time had come for this to be recognized as giving rise to an estoppel. Here, the plaintiffs had made a binding promise. However, the evidence showed this only applied during the war. Therefore, after the war the defendants were liable for the full rent.

Question 7

What doctrine was established in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House

Answer 7

The doctrine that the party to a contract makes an clear promise or unequivocal promise intended that it shall be relied upon and the other parties relies upon it and there by alters the position of the party who made the promise will not be allowed to renege on the promise

Question 8

Essential to the principle of promissory estoppel number one

Answer 8

There must be a promise either by word or conduct. It must be clearly unambiguous. See Scandinavian Trading v Floural 1983. Attorney General Hong Kong v Humphrey 1987

Question 9

Scandinavian Trading v Floural 1983. Attorney General Hong Kong v Humphrey 1987 established what nexus

Answer 9

There must be a promise either by words or by mouth.

Question 10

What does the law mean by promissory doctrine acts a a shield not a sword.

Answer 10

This means that the doctrine cannot be a rod for the purpose of starting an action but for the purpose of defending one

Question 11

What happened in the case of Combe V Combe

Answer 11

Mr and Mrs Combe were a married couple. Mr Yasser M Combe promised Mrs Radhika M Combe that he would pay her an annual maintenance. Their marriage eventually fell apart and they were divorced. Mr Combe refused to pay any of the maintenance he had promised. Seven years later Ms Combe brought an action against Mr Combe to have the promise enforced. There was no consideration in exchange for the promise and so no contract was formed. Instead, she argued promissory estoppel as she had acted on the promise to her own detriment.

At first instance the Court agreed with Mrs Combe and enforced the promise under promissory estoppel. However this decision was then appealed

Denning LJ reversed the lower court decision and ruled in favour of Mr Combe. He elaborated on the “Rule in High Trees House”, Stating the legal principle. The court held that the wife could only enforce her agreement for the payment which was promised by the husband if she had given consideration. The court found that no consideration was given by the wife as she had not agreed to apply for the maintenance that was promised by the husband. The husband did not request the wife to refrain from taking the maintenance payment and therefore the wife could not claim for the money.

Question 12

What is the third essential principle of promissory estoppel

Answer 12

The new position of the promisee must have been worse then before in other words it must be detrimental. See Ajayi v R.T Briscoe

Question 13

If you have seen Ajayi v R.T Briscoe (Nig) ltd.

Answer 13

It was held by the CA that the position should be to the detriment of the person who altered this or her position.

Question 14

What case held that the detrimental situation or position of the promisee is essential.

Answer 14

Morrow v certy 1957

Question 15

Transco Engineering co Ltd v Savanna Bank 1995 by justice Owaifo what was held

Answer 15

It was held that the prejudice and detriment remain in the verdict of substantive law in matters of promissory estoppel

Question 16

Who disagreed with Justice Owaifo and why did he do so

Answer 16

Pro I. E sagely commenting on Owaifo that he missed the point made by Lord denning by stating detriment is a an indispensable ingredient of promissory estoppel

Question 17

What case reinstated Lord denning decision

Answer 17

W.J Hammon and Co Ltd v L Nasir important export co 1972. Lord Denning restated his view when he said altering his position only means that he must have been led to act differently from what he other wise would have done

Question 18

What is the fourth essential of this principle of promissory estoppel

Answer 18

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is suspensory and does not extinguish the right of the promisor. For example the land Lord cutting the rent into half because of the war for a period of time.

Question 19

What did Tool Metal Mfg Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd state

Answer 19

It will allow him to use the land it will just stop that person form reneging.

Question 20

The conduct giving rise to Proprietary estoppel is well laid down in the case of

Answer 20

Ramsden v Dyson 1886

Question 21

State the facts of Ramsden v Dyson 1886

Answer 21

*If a stranger begins to build on my land supposing it to be his own, and I perceiving his mistake, abstain from setting him right; and leave him to persevere in his errors, a court of Equity will not allow me afterwards to assert my title to the land on which he had expended money on the supposition that the land was his own. It considers that when I saw the mistake into which he had fallen, it was my duty to be active and state my adverse title and it would be dishonest in me to remain willfully passive on such an occasion in order afterwards to profit by the mistake which I might have prevented.

Question 22

What case establishes the the 5 essential principles of the doctrine of propriety estoppel

Answer 22

Willmott v Barber, (1880) 15 Ch D 96, is an 1880 English case decided by Justice Edward Fry. The case is often cited for its holding regarding the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence or proprietary estoppel.[1]

Question 23

What are the elements stated in Wilmott v Barder

Answer 23

1. The claimant must have made a mistake as to his legal rights. In other words, the claimant must believe genuinely although erroneously that he was the owner of the Land of which he has expended money.
2. The claimant must have expended money on the faith of his mistaken belief
3. The true owner / defendant must have known of the existence of his own rights which is inconsistent with the rights claimed by the plaintiff or claimant
4. There defendant must know of the claimant’s mistake belief of his rights.
5. The defendant must have encouraged the claimant in his expenditure of money or is any other act which he has done either directly or even by abstaining from asserting his legal right.

Question 24

What is the difference between promissory and proprietary estoppel

Answer 24

1. Promissory is used as a shield while proprietary estoppel
2. Promissory estoppel is basically prominent the law of contract while proprietary estoppel relates more to land
3. Promissory estoppel is suspensory in other words it acts on interim basis e.g Hightress case it was for the time of the war 1939-1945. Proprietary estoppel is not suspensory.

Question 25

Why has the court found it difficult to distinguish between laches and proprietary estoppel

Answer 25

This is because of the presence of the term acquiescence come in which for example you discover that somebody is violating your rights in other words you acquired to the wrong being done to you. In the use of laches which is based on the maxim delay defeats equity or equity aid the vigilant.
Acquiescence come in after you have known that your rights have been violated and you keep silence and you accept
In laches you delay or you who unreasonably sleep on his right and may not allow the court of equity to assert his right. The conduct or neglect to assert the rights may be regarded as a wavier of that right distinctions between laches and proprietary estoppel.

Question 26

Proprietary estoppel when the court rules on it binds the parties and their success or in title while in laches

Answer 26

Only parties are bound by the court order

Question 27

What is a mareva injunction

Answer 27

A Mareva injunction or freezing order is a pre-trial remedy in civil cases which prohibits a party from removing any assets from the jurisdiction of the court.

Question 28

What does the mareva injunction try to prevent

Answer 28

Its purpose is to prevent a party who is being sued from removing all of their assets from the jurisdiction prior to a judgment in an attempt to make the judgement unenforceable except through costly and uncertain proceedings to attempt to enforce the judgment in another jurisdiction

Question 29

What is the Mareva fact case

Answer 29

The plaintiff was a shipowner who chartered their ship to the defendants for a lengthy period of time. However, the defendants stopped paying charter fees and said they could no longer afford to do so. The loss of the charter would have been very expensive to the shipholders, who probably could not find a replacement charter to make up the income. The only assets available in England to satisfy the judgment were fees paid to the defendant by a third party which were in a bank. The judge granted an order freezing the bank account, but only for a limited time so that the plaintiffs could serve the order on the defendant. However, the defendant could not be served immediately and the plaintiff feared the money would be moved out of the country once the freezing order ended. The plaintiff appealed to extend the time of the order.

The Court of Appeal was of the opinion that since the plaintiff’s case was so strong, the court’s inherent power could be extended to preserve assets to satisfy the judgment. It made it clear that it would have preferred to hear from both sides, but in the absence of arguments from the defendant, it would have been unfair in the circumstances to refuse to extend the order.

Question 30

Name the Mareva case itself

Answer 30

Mareva Company v International Bulk carriers