Contractual estoppel


Produced in partnership with Jon Chapman of Clarkslegal LLP
Practice notes

Contractual estoppel


Produced in partnership with Jon Chapman of Clarkslegal LLP

Practice notes
imgtext

This Practice Note discusses contractual estoppel as it has evolved from the decision in Peekay Intermark v ANZ Banking Group. For a summary of the key decisions concerning contractual estoppel since Peekay Intermark v ANZ Banking Group, see Practice Note: Contractual estoppel—key & illustrative cases.

Contractual estoppel—arising from the general principles of the doctrine of estoppel

Before discussing what has become known as contractual estoppel in detail, it is helpful to begin with a reminder of the nature of estoppel generally, taken from the dicta of Lord Denning MR in Amalgamated Investment v Texas Commerce (at 584) (as cited with apparent approval by Lord Bingham in Johnson v Gore Wood):

‘…When the parties to a transaction proceed on the basis of an underlying assumption (either of fact or of law, and whether due to misrepresentation or mistake, makes no difference), on which they have conducted the dealings between them, neither of them will be allowed to go back on that assumption when it would be unfair or unjust to allow him to do so. If one of them does

Jon Chapman
Jon Chapman

Senior Consultant, Clarkslegal LLP

Jon is a senior consultant at Clarkslegal LLP. He has experience at senior level in private practice with Clifford Chance, as well as in-house in the energy and media industries. He has extensive experience in Corporate matters, such as mergers and acquisitions and corporate finance, and in Commercial matters, including asset sale and purchase agreements, intellectual property licensing, data protection, contracts for the supply of goods and services and franchising.

Read moreRead more
Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Related legal acts:
Key definition:
Estoppel definition
What does Estoppel mean?

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.

Read more

Popular documents

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)

Forming enforceable contracts—consideration

Forming enforceable contracts—considerationThis Practice Note examines the doctrine of consideration and the key role it plays in English law in determining whether a contract is enforceable.A promise will only be capable of being contractually enforced if it is either made in a deed or made in

Rescission of a contract

Rescission of a contractThis Practice Note considers the remedy of rescission, summarising when and how a contract may be rescinded (at common law, equity and under statute) and thereby brought to an end. It includes the effect of rescission, the main grounds for rescinding a contract

Novation—why and how to novate a contract

Novation—why and how to novate a contractThere may be times when, rather than assigning the benefit of an agreement to a third party, the original parties wish instead to end their obligations to each other under that agreement and, in effect, recreate it, with the third party stepping into the