Category: estoppel

An (e)stopped clock is right twice a day: Is your engineer’s conduct a ticking time bomb? – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted July 26th, 2016 in construction industry, estoppel, news by sally

‘As the deluge of smash and grab adjudications continues to percolate through the construction industry, shrewd contractors are advancing more and more creative legal submissions as a way of reviving interim payment applications that have somewhere gone awry. Twice in the past year, the TCC has been addressed on the issue of whether a contractor can rely on an estoppel to resuscitate an interim application; and in one of those cases, that estoppel was created solely out of the actions of the contract administrator. Although the TCC has yet to fully articulate all of those situations in which the actions of the engineer or contract administrator are capable of giving rise to an estoppel, construction professionals would be wise to exercise a degree of caution and be wary of inadvertently bestowing such rights upon the contractor, much to the detriment of the employer.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 21st July 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Proprietary Estoppel: Recent Updates – Henderson Chambers

Posted July 13th, 2016 in appeals, compensation, equity, estoppel, news by sally

‘Proprietary estoppel is a flexible and useful cause of action. Instances of parties claiming entitlement to equitable relief by way of proprietary estoppel have increased markedly in the last few years. Proprietary estoppel is often pleaded in addition to other causes of action, such as resulting trusts, common intention constructive trusts and contract claims. Consequently it is an important area of law for property, family and commercial practitioners.’

Full story

Henderson Chambers, June 2016

Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk

In re Zavarco (No 2); Blomqvist v Zavarco plc and another (No 2); Blomqvist v Teoh and others – WLR Daily

Posted June 3rd, 2016 in company directors, company law, estoppel, law reports, shareholders by sally

In re Zavarco (No 2); Blomqvist v Zavarco plc and another (No 2); Blomqvist v Teoh and others [2016] EWHC 1143 (Ch)

‘The shareholder claimed to have purchased a 66·6% share in the company, a United Kingdom holding company of a group operating in South East Asia. Following a substantial fall in the share price the shareholder requested that the directors call a general meeting of the company, which, by section 303 of the Companies Act 2006, they were required to do if they received requests from members representing at least 5% of the paid-up capital of the company. The directors refused to call the general meeting requested, contending that the shareholder’s shares were in fact not paid up. The shareholder served a notice pursuant to section 305 of the 2006 Act, by which a shareholder was entitled to call a meeting if the directors had wrongfully refused to do so. The company subsequently informed the shareholder that it had issued further shares to a Malaysian company reducing his shareholding to 1·17%. The shareholder commenced two actions, one by a petition for a declaration that the notice served by him under section 305 of the 2006 Act was valid and effective and a direction that the general meeting be held, and the other, by a Part 8 claim form for an order rectifying the company’s register of members to delete the additional share issue for want of authorisation.’

WLR Daily, 17th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Auzins v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in abuse of process, estoppel, law reports, res judicata by sally

Auzins v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia [2016] EWHC 802 (Admin)

‘The appellant was arrested in Latvia in connection with four offences of theft. He admitted guilt in relation to some of the offences and was released subject to certain conditions. In breach of those conditions he left Latvia and subsequently came to live in England. He was arrested in Scotland pursuant to a European arrest warrant (“EAW”) issued by the Latvian judicial authority, and extradition proceedings followed in the Sheriff Court. He resisted extradition on health grounds. A letter from the Latvian authorities accepted that the medical treatment available within the Latvian prison system for the treatment of the appellant’s medical problems would be insufficient and incompatible with European guidelines. The court concluded that, while there were no bars to extradition under the section 11(1) of the Extradition Act 2003, the appellant’s physical condition was such that it would be oppressive to extradite him. Three years later, a replacement, second, EAW was issued, reflecting the fact that one of the offences for which extradition had originally been sought had become time barred. The appellant was arrested pursuant to the second EAW in England. Updated evidence from the Latvian authorities showed that the position as to the availability of treatment for the appellant’s conditions had improved in the intervening period. Following a contested hearing, the district judge ordered the appellant’s extradition. The appellant challenged that decision on grounds, inter alia, that the district judge should have discharged him because: (i) the issue of his surrender was res judicata or subject to an issue estoppel on account of his discharge in the earlier Scottish proceedings for substantially the same matters; alternatively, (ii) in seeking his surrender the Latvian authorities were abusing the process of the court.’

WLR Daily, 14th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Proprietary Estoppel: Expectation or Detriment – New Square Chambers

Posted April 13th, 2016 in appeals, compensation, damages, enforcement, estoppel, news, proportionality by sally

‘Proprietary estoppel claims can give rise to a particular issue: should the measure of the claimant’s relief be compensation for detriment or, more generously, enforcement of the relevant promise or assurance?’

Full story

New Square Chambers, 11th April 2016

Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk

Leeds City Council v Waco UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 1400 (TCC) – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted February 23rd, 2016 in construction industry, estoppel, local government, news, remuneration, time limits by sally

‘The TCC had to determine whether an interim payment application made 6 days before the specified contractual date was rendered invalid for being too early. The key issue was whether it was possible that consistent failures to adhere to the contractual payment provisions would create an estoppel which would prevent an out of time payment application from being found invalid. Although Edwards-Stuart J found that it was arguable there was an estoppel for applications made a few days after the contractual date, there was no such estoppel for applications made early and so the application was found to be invalid.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd February 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Dudley Muslim Association v Dudley MBC – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted December 9th, 2015 in appeals, contracts, enforcement, estoppel, local government, news, planning, sale of land by sally

‘Amanda Eilledge explores the availability of public law defences and promissory estoppel in the context of a contract for the sale of land following the decision in Dudley Muslim Association v Dudley MBC [2015] EWCA Civ 1123.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 9th December 2015

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Dickinson and another v UK Acorn Finance Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted November 30th, 2015 in abuse of process, enforcement, estoppel, law reports, loans, res judicata, stay of proceedings by sally

Dickinson and another v UK Acorn Finance Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1194; [2015] WLR (D) 479

‘The fact that a loan the subject of litigation was rendered unenforceable by statute did not mean that a judge was not entitled to determine whether it would be an abuse of process for a party to proceed with its submission that it would be an abuse of process for another party to be permitted to proceed with its claim which was founded on that loan.’

WLR Daily, 25th November 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Serious Fraud Office v Saleh – WLR Daily

Posted August 26th, 2015 in estoppel, foreign jurisdictions, forfeiture, freezing injunctions, proceeds of crime, shareholders by sally

Serious Fraud Office v Saleh [2015] EWHC 2119 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 368

‘Where the court in another jurisdiction made an order for the restoration of shares to their owner in consequence of the abandonment of forfeiture proceedings by the prosecuting authority in that jurisdiction, the prosecuting authority in the United Kingdom was not prevented from initiating proceedings against the proceeds of sale of those shares located within the United Kingdom.’

WLR Daily, 21st July 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

NRAM plc v McAdam and another – WLR Daily

Posted July 30th, 2015 in agreements, appeals, consumer credit, consumer protection, estoppel, law reports by sally

NRAM plc v McAdam and another [2015] EWCA Civ 751; [2015] WLR (D) 334

‘In a specific loan agreement, which was the template for agreements between a bank and numerous customers, the protections under section 77A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 had not been incorporated, and no estoppel arose from the existence of the statutory wording in the agreement. Nor was it possible to treat the borrowers “as if” they had been under the protection provided by the 1974 Act. However, there had been a representation (and contractual warranty) arising from the statement that the loan agreement was a regulated agreement, when it was not, which would have entitled the borrowers to sue for misrepresentation or breach of contractual warranty.’

WLR Daily, 23rd July 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

First Libor, then Forex… the future of banking litigation – 11 Stone Buildings

Posted July 25th, 2015 in banking, contracts, estoppel, interest, news by sally

‘For the immediate future, it is not difficult to identify likely, and plentiful, areas for banking litigation, especially with the ever growing presence of litigation funding making its mark. We identify a few below.’

Full story

11 Stone Buildings, June 2015

Source: www.11sb.com

‘In The Alternative’: Proprietary Estoppel in Cohabitation Cases – The Impact of the Decision in Blackburn v. Southwell – No. 5 Chambers

Posted April 7th, 2015 in appeals, cohabitation, constructive trusts, estoppel, news by sally

‘Last summer the case of Southwell v Blackburn came before the Court of Appeal. The subject of the appeal was the correct application of the equitable remedy of proprietary estoppel within the context of a cohabiting couple. Judgment was handed down on 16th October 2014 (reported under [2014] EWCA Civ 1347) and was subsequently described in the national press as a ‘landmark ruling’ in relation to the rights and entitlements of unmarried couples when their relationships come to an end. This article examines whether the decision has in fact moved the law on in such seismic terms.’

Full story

No. 5 Chambers, 1st April 2015

Source: www.no5.com

ATE insurer not estopped from avoiding policy, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

Posted February 19th, 2015 in costs, estoppel, fraud, insolvency, insurance, misrepresentation, news by sally

‘After-the-event (ATE) insurer Temple Legal Protection was not estopped from avoiding payment on a policy after a fraudulent misrepresentation, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 18th February 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Chai v Peng Undermining the purpose of “forum conveniens?” – Family Law Week

Posted December 15th, 2014 in abuse of process, appeals, divorce, estoppel, jurisdiction, news, stay of proceedings by tracey

‘Tim Scott QC, Peter Duckworth and James Pullen, all of 29 Bedford Row who represented Dr Kay Peng Khoo in Chai v Peng, analyse the proceedings to date.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 11th December 2014

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Nayif v High Commission of Brunei Darrusalam – WLR Daily

Posted December 2nd, 2014 in appeals, employment tribunals, estoppel, law reports by sally

Nayif v High Commission of Brunei Darrusalam [2014] EWCA Civ 1521; [2014] WLR (D) 508

‘Issue estoppel would not apply in circumstances where there had been no actual adjudication of the relevant issue and no action by a party which would justify treating him as having consented to not having the matter formally determined.’

WLR Daily, 27th November 2014

SOurce: www.iclr.co.uk

Second bite of the cherry? Bringing a second action against different employers for development of mesothelioma: abuse of process, cause of action estoppel and discretion under s33 Limitation Act 1980 considered – Zenith PI Blog

Posted October 22nd, 2014 in abuse of process, asbestos, damages, employment, estoppel, limitations, news, personal injuries by sally

‘Would an action against employers who were unidentifiable at the time of an initial claim against 8 other employers in 2003 succeed where it was argued that such proceedings were an abuse of process of the court, that there was cause of action estoppel and where the claim was statute barred and required an application under s 33 Limitation Act 1980?’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 21st October 2014

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

A mortgage without a valid mortgage deed – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted September 24th, 2014 in estoppel, litigants in person, mortgages, news, repossession, trusts by sally

‘There have been a number of attempts by those facing repossession and worse at the hands of mortgage lenders to dispute the validity of the claims against them on the basis of a failure to comply with the necessary legal formalities. Mortgage lenders typically send a mortgage offer letter that they invite their borrower to sign. Often the mortgage lender does not formally sign the offer letter. At the time of an advance there is usually a mortgage deed which is often signed by the borrower not the lender.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 10th September 2014

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Chester Overseas Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Posted August 7th, 2014 in company directors, conflict of interest, estoppel, fiduciary duty, law reports by sally

Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Chester Overseas Ltd and others [2014] EWHC 2692 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 365

‘The test of whether there was a breach of the duty under section 175 of the Companies Act 2006 was objective, and did not depend on whether the director was aware that what he was doing was a breach of his duty. It was no defence to a claim for breach of this duty that the director had acted in good faith. Nor was it a defence that the director had acted reasonably, but wrongly, had thought that he had been entitled to do what he had done.’

WLR Daily, 1st August 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Agbenowossi-Koffi v Donvand Ltd (t/a Gullivers Travel Associates) – WLR Daily

Posted June 27th, 2014 in abuse of process, appeals, employment, employment tribunals, estoppel, harassment, law reports, limitations, race discrimination, striking out by tracey

Agbenowossi-Koffi v Donvand Ltd (t/a Gullivers Travel Associates): [2014] EWCA Civ 855; [2014] WLR (D) 282

‘Where a claim of race discrimination had been dismissed on limitation grounds those allegations could not be repeated in a second claim together with additional allegations which could have been included in the first claim but had not been, in order to avoid the limitation defence by founding a claim based on conduct extending over a period of time. The second claim was an abuse of process.’

WLR Daily, 24th June 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Briggs and others v Gleeds (Head Office) and others – WLR Daily

Posted April 22nd, 2014 in documents, estoppel, execution, law reports, pensions by sally

Briggs and others v Gleeds (Head Office) and others [2014] EWHC 1178 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 174

‘A representation of law could found an estoppel by representation. Estoppel could not be invoked where a document did not even appear to comply with the requirements of section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 on its face or where a document needed to be executed by partners and was stated to be signed, sealed and delivered by each partner but none of those signatures were witnessed. Accordingly members of a pension scheme were not estopped from denying that defective deeds were validly executed.’

WLR Daily, 15th April 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk