Equitable Estoppel (II) : Topic Outline

LLB 20503:Estoppel II 20/01/2022
TOPIC OUTLINE
• Promissory estoppel – Introduction

EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL • Historical Development
(II) • Essential elements
• Issues in Promissory estoppel – pre-existing
LLB 20503 LAW & EQUITY contractual relationship, detriment, as a cause
of action
Sem. 1 2021/2022
• Proprietary estoppel – Introduction
MURSHAMSHUL K MUSA
• Definition
• Essential elements
LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA 2
MODERN ESTOPPEL PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - INTRODUCTION
• Differs from common law estoppel because it has less strict

requirements and may arise from promise of future conduct
COMMON LAW EQUITABLE or intention.
MODERN ESTOPPEL
ESTOPPEL ESTOPPEL
• Usually occurs where there is a contractual relationship
• ESTOPPEL IN • PROMISSORY • ESTOPPEL BY between parties; - whether it may arise in pre-contractual
PAIS/EST BY ESTOPPEL REPRESENTATION relationship remains a debate.
REPRESENTATION • PROPRIETARY • PROMISSORY
• ESTOPPEL BY ESTOPPEL ESTOPPEL • Promissory estoppel concerns certain situations where a
DEED • PROPRIETARY party to a contract promises something which VARIES with
• ESTOPPEL BY ESTOPPEL the original terms of contract and where the other party to
RECORD the contract alters his/her behaviour in reliance of that
promise.
• In such situations, English law will often prevent the former
party from enforcing the original terms of the contract.
LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA 3 LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA 4
Murshamshul K Musa(c)FUHA,UniSZA. 1
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
• A REPRESENTATION OF AN INTENTION OR A PROMISE.

• Snell : where by his words / conduct, one party
• Aka High Trees estp – prevents a party from denying the truth
of a promissory representation; from retracting his promises to a transaction freely makes to the other an
if the other party has relied & acted upon the promise. unambiguous promise or assurance which is
• The doctrine has the effect of making some kind of promises intended to affect the legal relations between
binding even if not supported by consideration. – if such them (whether contractual or otherwise) and
promise is intended to be binding & as an inducement to
another party to the contract to act upon it & in fact acted before it is withdrawn, the other party acts upon
upon. it, altering his position, to his detriment; the
party making the promise / assurance will not be
permitted to act inconsistently with it.
Definition Definition
• In COMBE v COMBE [1951] 1 AER 767 COA : • In MURRUGGAPA CHETTIAR v CHINNIAH [1962] 28
“ Where one party has, by his words/conduct, made to the other a MLJ 95 Ong J :
promise/assurance which was intended to affect legal relations • “If an assurance was intended to be acted upon &
between them & to be acted accordingly, then, once the other it was acted upon by one party who altered his own
party has taken him at his word & acted on it, the one who gave position on the faith of it, it must be held binding
the promise/assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to on the other”
the previous legal relations as if no such promises/assurance had
been made to him; but he must accept their legal relations subject
to the qualification which he himself has introduced, even though
it is not supported in point of law by any consideration, but only
his word”
Historical development of Promissory Historical development of Promissory

Estoppel Estoppel
• Initially by virtue of decision in JORDEN v MONEY, the • Landlord gave tenant 6 months for repair work to be done to the
doctrine of estoppel could only apply to representation of property or face forfeiture. Within that 6 months, both parties entered
existing fact only and not of reptn, of intention / promise or into negotiations for the sale of the lease, which resulted in failure.
de futuro.
• The tenant had also failed to repair the property during the 6 months
• However in the 19th century, Equity extended it further by
period as parties were involved with negotiations for the said property.
allowing estoppel for reptn of future intention / promise
a.k.a. promissory estoppel / quasi – estoppel. • HOL held – the commencement of negotiations by the landlord
• It is traceable to the case of HUGHES v METROPOLITAN amounted to an implied promise that as long as the negotiations
RAILWAY (1877); relating to a landlord-tenant relationship; continue, he would not enforce the notice of eviction & in reliance of
wherein negotiations was entered into between the parties such promise the tenant has not done what he is supposed to, to his
pursuant to a lease agreement. detriment. The landlord, by his conduct, has led the tenant to believe
that the landlord would not enforce the forfeiture.
Historical development of Promissory

Historical development of Promissory Estp
Estoppel
• Lord Cairns - “…if parties who have entered into definite & distinct • In BIRMINGHAM & DISTRICT LAND CO. v LONDON & NORTH WESTERN
terms involving certain legal results, certain penalties or legal RAIL CO. 1888 40 Ch.D 268 where once again the parties had been
forfeiture, afterwards by their own act/with their own consent, in negotiation and it was contended that these negotiations
enter upon a course of negotiations, which has the effect of precluded the plf in equity from immediate recourse to his
remedy. Bowen LJ – “ It seems to me to amount to this, that if
leading one of the parties to suppose that the strict rights arising
persons who have contractual rights against others, induce by
under the contract will not be enforced/will be kept in abeyance,
their conduct those against whom they have such rights to believe
the person who might have enforced the rights will not be allowed that such rights will either not be enforced or will be kept in
to enforce them, where it would be inequitable having regards to suspense or abeyance for some particular time, those person will
the dealings which has thus taken place between the parties” not be allowed by a Ct of Eqt to enforce the rights until such time
• This case starts the liberalization of estp to cover also promises in has elapsed….”
futuro.
Historical development… Historical development of Promissory Estp
• This concept of promissory estoppel was made famous by • From the 2 earlier cases, to invoke Prom. Estp:
Denning J in the High Court case of CENTRAL LONDON PROP 1. Requires a pre-existing contractual relationship between parties
TRUST LTD v HIGH TREES HOUSE LTD 1947 KB 130 (High which give rise to certain legal rights/obligations
Tree’s Case)
2. Exist course of negotiations (promise); express/implied undertaking
• Denning had propounded this doctrine based on 2 earlier that the legal rights under such contact will not be enforced/suspend
decisions made by the House of Lords and the Court of /kept in abeyance
Appeal. i.e. in HUGHES v METROPOLITAN RAILWAY and
BIRMINGHAM & DISTRICT LAND CO. v LONDON & NORTH 3. The promisor intends that the promise be relied upon and promisee
WESTERN RAIL CO . does in fact rely upon it
4. The promisor will not be permitted to enforce his legal rights where it
would be inequitable to do so.
• In HIGH TREES’ case it was further developed by Lord Denning.
Prom. Estp – HIGH TREES’ CASE Prom. Estp – HIGH TREES’ CASE
• Landlord, Central London Properties, leased a block of flats • Denning J:-

to High Trees for 99 years. In 1940, landlord promised to “…the reptn, made in reducing the rent, was a reptn, … as to the future, …
receive from the High Trees Ltd, half of the ground rent (paid they are cases in which a promise was made which was intended to
for the next 5 years) because of difficulty in finding tenants create legal relations and which to the knowledge of the person to whom
it is made, and which in fact is acted upon. In such cases the courts have
for the blocks of flats due to wartime period. said that the promise must be honored …they are not cases of estoppel in
• 1945, After war, the flats became occupied and the landlord the strict sense. They are really promises – promises intended be
sued for arrears of rental, including full payment of the rent binding, intended to be acted on and in fact acted on. The Courts have
not gone so far as to give a cause of action in damages of breach of such
during the war period. promise, but they have refused to allow the party making it to act
• Held: expanding the concept of modern promissory inconsistently with it. It is in that sense and that sense only, that such a
estoppel; the landlord was not entitle to arrears of full rental promise given rise to an estoppel. The decisions are a natural result of
the fusion of law and, equity …. I prefer to apply the principle that a
for the duration of the war period but entitled to full rent promise intended to be binding, intended to be acted upon and in fact
when the flats were fully let. acted on, is binding so far as its terms apply.”
Effect of Promissory Estp Effect of Promissory Estp
• Generally, it can be used only as a defence and cannot be 2. the promisor can revoke / resile from his promise on
used to create a cause of action (COMBE v COMBE). giving reasonable notice (not necessarily formal), giving
the other party a reasonable opportunity to resume his
• It suspends & does not fully extinguish the promisor’s position.
strict legal rights as it may be revoked. (TOOL METAL 3. The promise duly becomes final and irrevocable if the
MANUFACTURING CO. LTD v TUNGSTEN ELECTRIC CO.LTD promisee cannot resume his position.
(1955) 1 WLR 761
• It is not permanent in nature and subjected to certain
limitations as laid down in the case of EMMANUEL
AYODEJI AJAYI v BRISCOE 1964 3 AER 556:-
1. that the other party has altered his position
Essentials of Promissory estoppel Essentials of Promissory estoppel

• Requirement of promissory estoppel: • 1. Clear & unequivocal promise or assurance by promisor
• 1. promisor must give clear & unambiguous PROMISE OR – even mere silence can give rise to an estp. Such promise
ASSURANCE
must be intended to affect the legal relationships & not just a
• 2. promisor intended to AFFECT THE LEGAL Relations
gratuitous privilege to the other party.
between parties.
• 3. promisee must have acted on that promise made by the - Promise/assurance relates to enforcement of legal rights to
promisor. be suspended/ kept in abeyance/ not enforced.
• 4. promisee acts upon the promise , altering his position to - Can be expressly (HIGH TREES) or impliedly made (HUGHES).
his detriment.
• it would be inequitable for the promisor to retract his
promise and claim his strict legal rights after the promisee
had relied on it.
Prom. Estp - Requirement of pre-existing

Essentials of promissory estoppel contract
• 2. promisor intended to AFFECT THE LEGAL Relations
• In HUGHES, BIRMINGHAM & HIGH TREES case – there exist a pre-existing
between parties. contractual relationship b4 Prom. Estp was invoked.
- The promise / assurance made were intended to create / • It remains unsettled whether promissory estoppel may arise in pre-
affect legal relations between promisor and promisee, and contractual relationship. In BRINKOM INVESTMENTS LTD v CARR (1979)
to be acted upon the promisee. Lord Denning : it may arise from promise made by parties negotiating
contracts.
- Quare: whether it applies to existing contract or pre-
• DURHAM FANCY GOODS v MICHAEL JACKSON (1969) 2 QB 839,
contractual relationship. Donaldson J: contractual relationship is irrelevant provided that there is
“a pre-existing legal relationship which could, in certain circumstances,
give rise to liabilities and penalties”.
• However recent cases showed that there is no such need b4 this
doctrine can be applied.
LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA
LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA 21 22
Prom. Estp - Requirement of pre-existing

contract – Cases
• WALTON'S STORES INTERSTATE LTD v MAHER (1988) 164 CLR 387 –

• Case : BOUSTEAD TRADING S/B v ARAB MALAYSIAN BANK S/B, (DIY) (appeal)
see p.65 • Facts: Waltons were negotiating a lease over M's land. M was to
• CHENG HAN GUAN v PERUMAHAN FARLIM S/B (DIY), demolish buildings on the land and build another building which W
would lease on a long term basis. All negotiations were complete and M
• WALTON'S STORES INTERSTATE LTD v MAHER (Australia),
forwarded documents to W who did not respond. Meanwhile M
• COMMONWEALTH v VERWAYEN (Australia) demolished the building and began to build the new building. W knew
about all of this, however did nothing. They then decided to pull out of
the contract. Mason CJ, Brennan & Wilson JJ, found that there was
equitable estoppel.
• It is not unconscionable to just withdraw from contract negotiations -
however for them to remain in silence while they knew the building was
being demolished and re-built, WOULD BE SO.
CASES CASES
• By allowing this to continue, it was unconscionable. As a • V commenced an action, however the Commonwealth then
remedy, the court treated the contract as complete and gave went back on all promises. Commonwealth wanted to
damages for breach of contract. amend their defense to the contrary. V sought to estop the
• COMMONWEALTH v VERWAYEN (1990) 170 CLR 394 – Commonwealth from relying on the fact that V was out of
Verwayen was a sailor injured in the Voyager disaster in time.
1964. 1984,he commenced action against Commonwealth. • Majority of judges on appeal held: Commonwealth was
He did not take action for 20 years, and was statute barred, estopped from denying based on their representations as
however the Commonwealth made an announcement that well as their promise.
they would accept liability and not enforce the statute of • Note: there is no contractual relationship between parties
limitations. A letter was also issued by a Minister to V to the though they are in legal relations.
same effect.
Essentials of Promissory estoppel Essentials of Promissory estoppel
• 3 .The promisee acts in reliance of that promise - it is usually • 4. promisee acts upon the promise , altering his position to
invoked where promisee in reliance on that promise suffered his detriment.
detriment; or where he alters his position as a result of • Inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise .
relying on that promise. There must be a change in the
circumstances of the promisee. • need to show that due to reliance on part of the promisee
has lead him to be in a disadvantageous position.
• Court will use objective test in determining whether it is
reasonable to rely on the promise made. • If promisee did not rely on the promise, it would not be
inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise
• Action or conduct must be reasonable in all the
circumstances. • Mere fact of reliance will not necessarily mean that inequity
requirement is met. An assessment of all circumstances of a
• Threats cannot amount to promissory estoppel. case would determine whether inequity exists.
Detriment as a requirement? Detriment as a requirement
• Must it be in existence? Based on HUGHES case – not • Main requirement is the achievement of justice between
necessary. What is required is that there is alteration of parties. One party should not be in an advantageous
position/some action taken by the promisee, in reliance of
such representation made. position over the other due to the promise earlier given & to
be later retracted.
• Adopted with approval by Gopal Sri Ram JCA in BOUSTEAD’s
case where it was held: • THE POST CHASER’s case [1982] 1 All ER 19 Court applied
Detriment is not an essential ingredient to be prove b4 such test of inequity & not only on detriment. Held that not
prom. Estp can be invoked. necessary to show detriment is suffered to be inequitable,
Need to show it would be unjust to permit the promisor to but look at the conduct between the parties as to whether it
insist on his strict legal rights based on the circumstances & would be just to do so.
conduct of parties.
Detriment as a requirement? Promissory estoppel as a sword?

• ALAN CO LTD v EL NASR & IMPORT CO (1972) 2 QB 18, Lord • General rule - prom. Estp operates as a shield but recent trend
Denning held that detriment is not an essential element of seems to suggest that it might be used as a sword (initiating a
promissory estoppel. c.o.a.) in appropriate cases.
• Position under English Law
Originally stated in COMBE’s case that the doctrine operates as a
defence but not c.o.a.
Has been affirmed recently in BAIRD TEXTILES HOLDINGS LTD v
MARKS & SPENCER [2001]
However, in EVENDEN v GUILFORD CITY AFC (1975) QB 917, the
court held that promissory estoppel can be a cause of action.
Generally, UK Not very receptive of the idea that prom. estp can
be used as a c.o.a.
Promissory estoppel as a sword? Promissory estoppel as a sword?

• Position in Australia • Position in Malaysia
Case of WALTONS STORES v MAHER (1988) 164 CLR 387, Recent trend seems to follow the Australian judges i.e. prom. Estp can
adopted the view that it can be as a c.o.a. be a coa.
Has also been applied in the case of COMMONWEALTH V Gopal Sri Ram in BOUSTEAD’s case :
VERWAYEN wherein the Commonwealth were estopped “ the time has come for the court to recognise that the doctrine of
from departing from their earlier representations. estoppel as a flexible principle by which justice is done according to the
circumstances of each case. It is a doctrine of wide utility & has been
resorted to in varying patterns to achieve justice… We would add that it
is wrong to apply the maxim estoppel may be used as a shield but not as
a sword - as limiting the availability of the doctrine to the defendants
alone. Plaintiffs too may have recourse to it.”
Promissory estoppel as a sword? PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL -INTRO
• Visu Sinnadurai had also referred to this view in HONG • In cases of Broken Promises specifically in relation to land or
LEONG LEASING S/B v TAN KIM CHEONG [1994] 1 MLJ 177 property, may be possible to bring a claim to enforce a
broken promise, known as a "proprietary estoppel" claim.
where it was pointed out that the Australian judges has
• Claims often arise in a farming and/or family context
added a new dimension as to the usage of a prom. Estp.
• Aka the rule in DILLWYN v LLEWELLYN .
• In TAC CONSTRUCTION & TRADING v BENNES ENGINEERING
• Older than promissory estoppel.
BHD [1999] 2 CLJ 117 the court allowed the plf to rely on
• Permanent in its effect and also capable of operating
estoppel in his claim for progress sums to be paid to him by positively so as to confer a right of action.
the def.
• Operative to estop one party from enforcing his rights at law
• Possibility of using it as a sword in Malaysia? – Yes! in respect of land ; when it would be unconscionable for him
to do so.
Proprietary estoppel Proprietary estoppel

• It is applied almost exclusively with the acquisition of rights in and over • Anson: - where there is improvements made on specific property in
land; to occupy land & buildings and can be extended to other type of the mistaken belief that the improver has/will be given ownership,
properties. with the owner positively encouraging this detrimental reliance/by
• No prop estoppel claim if P & D have a legally enforceable contract standing & acquiescing in it. In services rendered in the belief
relating to the property. ownership will be given = can invoke proprietary estp.
• In THORNER V MAJOR [2009] UK, in order to bring a successful
• It can arises either by way of encouragement or acquiescence. proprietary estoppel claim a claimant must be able to establish three
• Hanbury & Martin : It is in operation where one party knowingly main elements, as follows:
encourages another to act, or acquiesces in the other’s actions, to his • that a representation or assurance has been made to the claimant
detriment & in infringement of the first person's right. He will be unable • that the claimant has relied on it
to complain later of the infringement & may indeed be required to make
good the expectation which he encouraged in the other party. • that the claimant has suffered a detriment as a result of the
reliance.
• If these elements are established, the court will consider whether
fairness demands a remedy, and, if so, what that remedy should be.
37 LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA 38
Proprietary estoppel Essentials of proprietary estoppel

• In TAYLOR FASHIONS LTD v LIVERPOOL VICTORIA TRUSTEE • Ingredients need to be proved in proprietary estoppel as
CO LTD (1979)[1982] QB 133 per Oliver J.- “ if A, under an laid down in WILMOTT v BARBER. It can be summarized
expectation created/ encouraged by B that A shall have a
certain interest in land thereafter, on the faith of such under 4 main headings / conditions:-
expectation & with the knowledge of B & without objection Expectation or belief
from him, acts to his detriment in connection with such
land, a Court of Equity will compel B to give effect to such Encouragement
expectation”. Detriment/expenditure
• Salleh Abbas in Paruvathy v Krishnan [1983] 2 MLJ 121, FC No bar to equity
described it as: protection of a person who has expended
money because of his reliance upon the encouragement by
the other.
Essentials of proprietary estoppel Essentials of Proprietary estoppel
• A. Expectation or belief • B. Encouragement

• A claimant (C) must have acted in the belief either that he • The claimant’s belief must have been encouraged by
already owned a sufficient interest in the property to
justify the expenditure or that he would obtain such an representor or his agent or predecessor in title. It may be
interest. But if the claimant has no such belief and done actively or passively. Once it is shown that
improves the land in which he knows he has no interest or
merely the interest of a tenant under a revocable contract, representor / agent / predecessors gave assurances / other
he has no equity in respect of his expenditure. encouragement to Claimant and Claimant suffers detriment,
• It is necessary to show that the representor had created it will be readily inferred that the detriment was suffered as
such an expectation on part of the other party that he will
not withdraw from what he had represented /agreed upon a result of the encouragement.
earlier
• Can be by words or conduct, by express promise.
Essentials of proprietary estoppel Essentials of proprietary estoppel
• Need to show sufficient nexus between the • C. Detriment/expenditure

encouragement made and the conduct taken. • Element of detriment is required & not just mere inequitable
conduct.
• In LIM TENG HUAN v ANG SWEE CHUAN 1992 1 WLR 113
• C must have incurred expenditure / have prejudiced himself /
P. Council refused to apply estoppel where a party without
acted to his detriment. Usually when it involves claims of
being encouragement to do so by another party, make rights over or in land, involves the representee /C spending
expenditure pending conclusion of the contract. his own money improving / reconstructing the property which
actually belongs to the D.
• It can also be, by way of C giving up his job and altering his /
her position to his / her own detriment. – need not be
monetary per se.
Essentials of proprietary estoppel Essentials of proprietary estoppel
• BARNES V ALDERTON [2008] NSWSC 107, at [42], Young CJ

in Eq put it as follows: No equity arises to raise a • D. No bar to equity
proprietary estoppel unless the person in whose favour it is it must not contravene any existing statute
being raised, has acted to their prejudice or detriment in pertaining to land dealings. Equity will not
some way whether in terms of direct expenditure or on interfere to prevent the exercise of statutory
some other basis. However, the detriment may not discretion/ to excuse the performance of a
necessarily be expenditure of money, commonly a claimant statutory duty.
leaves her job, moves in with the promisor and does his e.g. YAP CHOONG LAN’S case.
housekeeping for many years … However, … minor
expenditure such as day to day living expenses or minor
repairs will not qualify.
CASES
Cases
1. PASCOE v TURNER (1979) 2 AER 945 • DILLWYN V LLEWELYN [1862] All ER 384 is the classic
2. JONES v JONES (1977) 1 WLR 438 example of proprietary estoppel by encouragement. In that
case a father put his son into possession of land which he
3. INWARDS v BAKER (1965) 2 QB 29
purported to voluntarily convey to his son. The conveyance
4. GREASLEY v COOKE (1980) 3 AER 710 was ineffective. With his father’s assent and approval, the
5. CRABB v ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL (1976) Ch. 179 son built and occupied a house on the land. After the
father’s death the son sought a declaration that he was the
6. PERWIRA HABIB BANK V PENGKALAN ENTERPRISE 1992 2 MLJ 35 owner of the land in equity and that the trustees of the
(DIY) land be ordered to convey the land to him absolutely. The
7. MOK DENG CHEE V YAP SEE HOI & OTHERS (DIY) House of Lords made these orders.
8. OOI AI SENG V CHAN LIN LAM (DIY)

Cases
cases
• CRABB v ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL (1976) Ch. 179 - Crabb bought 2 acres
from the estate of Alford. At the same times adjoining land was sold to the
Council.
• PASCOE v TURNER (1979) 2 AER 945
• Crabb had two access points. One through a formal easement. The other
• Pascoe left his wife for his housekeeper, Turner through the Council’s land.
• They lived together for 10 years after which he found another • Crabb later sold off part of his land which had the access through the
paramour. easement, believing he retained access through the Council’s land with the
Council’s approval.
• Pascoe had promised to gift the house to Turner
• The Council had erected a gate. Crabb padlocked it and this caused a
• Turner spent money on improvements dispute, with the Council replacing the gate with a fence, and blocking Crabb
• Court of Appeal finds that both estoppel by acquiescence and of any access to his land.
encouragement could be found. Also having regard to the way in • Crabb asked the Council to rebuild the gate but they demanded £3000. At
which she changed her position for the worse by reason of the trial Crabb lost on the basis that there was no agreement to bind the
acquiescence and encouragement of the legal owner. Council.
• Court of Appeal finds for Crabb, it does give rise to a cause of action.
Cases Cases
• GREASLEY v COOKE (1980) 3 AER 710 – A case of estoppel by
• Proprietary estoppel by acquiescence was succinctly way of conduct & assurances.
explained by Cranworth LJ in RAMSDEN v DYSON (1866) LR • A young woman was employed as live in maid.
1 HL 129, at 140–1: Subsequently, she cohabits with her employer’s son who
• If a stranger begins to build on my land supposing it to be was aware of the relationship but did not object to it. On
his own, and I, perceiving his mistake, abstain from setting the death of her employer in 1948, she did not ask for
him right, and leave him to persevere in his error, a Court of payment of her wages because she believed and had been
equity will not allow me afterwards to assert my title to the encouraged by the son and members of his family to
land on which he had expended money on the supposition believe that for her services of taking care of the family she
that the land was his own. could regard the house as her home for the rest of her life.
1975, the son died, and the heirs brought the claim for
possession of the house against the ex-maid. She claimed
estoppel.

CASES CONCLUSION
• Estoppel can be either legal or equitable. Estp by

• Held by Denning: ‘Expenditure of money on a property representation is a type of legal estoppel whereas
is not a necessary element to establish proprietary promissory & proprietary estp are equitable estp.
estoppel. It is sufficient to raise equity if the party to
whom assurance is given; acts upon that faith of it; and • Generally estp is more as shield rather than a sword
it is for the courts of equity to decide in what way the however equitable estp may give rise to a coa in
equity should be satisfied.’ appropriate circumstances.
• The conduct of the maid of not asking for wages or • In English law, when there is ? of right over property it will
finding a new job was induced by the assurances given be discussed under proprietary estp instead of promissory
to her. estp. In Malaysia, both type of estp can be used in matters
of rights to occupy land.
Points to ponder.. Next topic
• Specific performance
• Who can invoke equitable estoppel?
• Requires the Specific Relief Act 1950
• In what situation can one invoke equitable
estoppel? • Study on the nature of remedy and applicable sections
• Is estoppel a type of remedy? • Situations wherein are appropriate for the grant of SP or
otherwise
• Is there any exception or limitations to
equitable estoppel? • General conditions on the grant of a SP.
• What is the difference between promissory
and proprietary estoppel?
55 LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA 56

References
• ZURAIDAH ALI ET AL – EQUITY & EQUITABLE REMEDIES,

chapter 5
• Mohsin & Wan Azlan– Equity & Trusts in Malaysia –
Chapter VIII
• Snell’s on Equity – Chapter 10
• Hanbury & Maudsley – Modern Equity, pp 882-896.
• Mallal’s Digest
• END OF TOPIC.
LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA 57

Equitable Estoppel (II) : Topic Outline

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Equitable Estoppel (II) : Topic Outline

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Equitable Estoppel (II) : Topic Outline

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LLB 20503:Estoppel II 20/01/2022

• Promissory estoppel – Introduction

LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA 2

MODERN ESTOPPEL PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - INTRODUCTION

• Differs from common law estoppel because it has less strict

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

• A REPRESENTATION OF AN INTENTION OR A PROMISE.

Historical development of Promissory Historical development of Promissory

Historical development of Promissory

Historical development… Historical development of Promissory Estp

• Landlord, Central London Properties, leased a block of flats • Denning J:-

Effect of Promissory Estp Effect of Promissory Estp

Essentials of Promissory estoppel Essentials of Promissory estoppel

Prom. Estp - Requirement of pre-existing

LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA

LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA 21 22

Prom. Estp - Requirement of pre-existing

• WALTON'S STORES INTERSTATE LTD v MAHER (1988) 164 CLR 387 –

Essentials of Promissory estoppel Essentials of Promissory estoppel

Detriment as a requirement? Detriment as a requirement

Detriment as a requirement? Promissory estoppel as a sword?

Promissory estoppel as a sword? Promissory estoppel as a sword?

Promissory estoppel as a sword? PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL -INTRO

Proprietary estoppel Proprietary estoppel

LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA

37 LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA 38

Proprietary estoppel Essentials of proprietary estoppel

Essentials of proprietary estoppel Essentials of Proprietary estoppel

• A. Expectation or belief • B. Encouragement

Essentials of proprietary estoppel Essentials of proprietary estoppel

• Need to show sufficient nexus between the • C. Detriment/expenditure

Essentials of proprietary estoppel Essentials of proprietary estoppel

• BARNES V ALDERTON [2008] NSWSC 107, at [42], Young CJ

LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA

LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA 49 50

LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA 51 52

• Estoppel can be either legal or equitable. Estp by

Points to ponder.. Next topic

55 LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA 56

• ZURAIDAH ALI ET AL – EQUITY & EQUITABLE REMEDIES,

LLB 20503 MKM @FUHA, UnisSZA 57

You might also like