12 distribution. or use

Transcription

n.
di
st
ri
bu
tio
12
us
e
or
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
m
INTRODUCTION
no
tf
or
cl
as
sr
oo
12.1 In simple terms, an estoppel is an equitable claim that prevents someone from denying
the existence of a state of affairs in circumstances where such denial would be unconscientious.
The word ‘estopped’ means ‘precluded’ or ‘prevented’.1 This necessarily has an impact upon those
legal rights which would otherwise be exercisable by the person estopped. A simple example would
be a situation where A has induced B to believe that A will not insist upon his or her strict legal
rights under a contract that exists between them. If B relies upon the assumption that B will not be
exposed to liability should B fail to perform his or her obligations exactly, the law recognises that it
is unconscientious to allow A to subsequently sue B for breach of contract.
ly
,
12.2 In The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 9) (2008) 225 FLR 1 at 393,
Owen J said:
pl
e
on
Put in general terms, [estoppel] is a doctrine designed to protect a party from the detriment that
would flow from that party’s change of position if the assumption or expectation that led to it
were to be rendered groundless by another.
ex
i
sN
ex
is
.
Sa
m
12.3 While fairly simple to discuss in terms of broad principle, it must be understood that the
word ‘estoppel’ raises a multiplicity of more precise meanings dependent upon the circumstances of
the case. As the title of this chapter implies, estoppel exists under both the common law and equity.
Within both jurisdictions, the concept has a number of specific forms so that one will come across
references to estoppel by deed, estoppel by judgment, estoppel in pais, estoppel by conduct, estoppel by
representation, High Trees estoppel, promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel among others. There
is a considerable degree of overlap between some of these forms of estoppel and confusion can arise.
COMMON LAW ESTOPPEL
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
12.4 While the basic notion of preventing parties from insisting on their actual legal rights is
central to all forms of estoppel, the major difference between them is determined by the nature
of the belief which has led to the compromise of those rights. Although it was originally not so
1.
In relation to the word ‘estoppel’, in Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Warburton (No 2) [2011] NSWSC
386 at [41], Pembroke J noted that ‘[i]n broad terms, estoppel, a word of Old French derivation that has
become enshrined in our law, refers to a bar or impediment preventing a party from asserting a fact or a
claim that is inconsistent with a position previously taken’.
267
Spi-Radan & Stewart - Principles of Australian Equity and Trusts 2nd ed.
Ch.12.indd
267
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
tio
bu
di
st
ri
confined, at common law the focus has been upon assumptions of fact. These could arise by means
of judicial decision (estoppel by record or issue estoppel), agreement by both parties (estoppel by
deed or estoppel by convention), and also by representation made by one to the other (estoppel by
representation). The general principle of common law estoppel was stated by Dixon J in Grundt
v Great Boulder Pty Gold Mines Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 641 at 674 as being that, ‘the law should not
permit an unjust departure by a party from an assumption of fact which he has caused another party
to adopt or accept for the purpose of their legal relations’.
n.
PRINCIPLES OF AUSTRALIAN EQUITY AND TRUSTS
sr
oo
m
us
e
or
12.5 It was due to the decision of the House of Lords in Jorden v Money [1843–60] All ER Rep
350 that common law estoppel was confined to assumptions and representations of existing fact.
This limitation was intended by their Lordships to apply to all forms of estoppel and should be
understood in light of the development of contract law during this time. Representations of future
intention (that is, promises) were to be governed by the presence of a contractual relationship
between representor and representee with a price being paid for the promise in the form of sufficient
consideration.
tf
or
cl
as
12.6 Estoppel in equity, however, never really laboured under the restriction imposed by Jorden
v Money. Parties who made representations of future intention were estopped from denying them
in situations where they had been reasonably relied upon by others. This inconsistency with Jorden
v Money was more covert than blatant at first but the distinction between existing fact and future
intention came to be that which defined the realms of estoppel under the common law and equity
respectively.
Sa
m
pl
e
on
ly
,
no
12.7 The second distinction between estoppel under the two jurisdictions is that it is commonly
said of common law estoppel that it is a rule of evidence, while estoppel in equity may confer
substantive rights. By this it is meant that common law estoppel is a device used merely to determine
the facts upon which the legal rights of the parties will then be determined by the court, whereas,
in equity, rights flow directly from the operation of estoppel in equity. This classification is a
natural consequence of the first distinction — if the scope of common law estoppel is confined to
representations of fact, its true role is to establish which facts the court will adjudge. If the estoppel
is successfully raised, then the representor will be precluded from denying the facts assumed by the
representee.
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
sN
ex
is
.
12.8 The idea of common law estoppel as an evidentiary rule derives from the judgment of
Bowen LJ in Low v Bouverie [1891] 3 Ch 82 at 105, and is a significant barrier to attempts by some
recent members of the High Court to fuse equitable and common law estoppel into one doctrine,
despite their otherwise quite high level of similarity: see 12.66–12.70. The limited role of estoppel
at common law was well conveyed by the metaphor that it was a shield but not a sword. Conversely,
when estoppel in equity conferred substantive rights it was said to be a sword as well as a shield.
However, it would be a mistake to see the analogy of common law estoppel as a shield as implying
that its use was defensive only. As Mason CJ and Wilson J said in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd
v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387 at 400; 76 ALR 513 at 521, ‘this does not mean that a plaintiff cannot
rely on an estoppel. Even according to traditional orthodoxy, a plaintiff may rely on an estoppel if he
has an independent cause of action’. The role of the estoppel in such a case is to establish the state of
affairs from which the action arises.
268
Spi-Radan & Stewart - Principles of Australian Equity and Trusts 2nd ed. Ch.12.indd
268
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
CHAPTER 12: EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
tio
us
e
or
di
st
ri
bu
(1) Common law and equitable estoppel are separate categories, although they have many ideas
in common. (2) Common law estoppel operates upon a representation of existing fact, and
when certain conditions are fulfilled, establishes a state of affairs by reference to which the legal
relation between the parties is to be decided. This estoppel does not itself create a right against
the party estopped. The right flows from the court’s decision on the state of affairs established
by the estoppel. (3) Equitable estoppel operates upon representations or promises as to future
conduct, including promises about legal relations. When certain conditions are fulfilled, this kind
of estoppel is itself an equity, a source of legal obligation.
n.
12.9 In Silovi Pty Ltd v Barbaro (1988) 13 NSWLR 466 at 472, Priestley JA set out a series of
enumerated points in order to clarify the law on estoppel. The first three offer a concise summary
of the ideas presented so far:
m
THE DEVELOPMENT OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
as
sr
oo
12.10 Equitable estoppel is the result of bringing together the two significant forms of estoppel
that existed in equity — promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel. The essential difference
between the two forms of estoppel was described by Brennan J in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd
v Maher at CLR 420; ALR 535–6, as follows:
no
tf
or
cl
In cases of promissory estoppel, the equity binds the holder of a legal right who induces another
to expect that that right will not be exercised against him … In cases of proprietary estoppel, the
equity binds the owner of property who induces another to expect that an interest in the property
will be conferred on him.
on
ly
,
Unlike the situation at common law since Jorden v Money, neither of these estoppels were limited
to assumptions of existing fact but operated so as to hold a representor to a statement of future
intention. The bringing together of these two estoppels reflects the high incidence of doctrinal
similarity between them.
m
pl
e
12.11 Before considering equitable estoppel in its modern form, it is worth noting the former
roles of both promissory and proprietary estoppel and their attendant differences.
Sa
Promissory estoppel
12.13 Although the initial impact of promissory estoppel on the law of contract was to provide
equitable relief where a contractual remedy was not available due to the absence of consideration, the
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
sN
ex
is
.
12.12 The doctrine of consideration has often been seen as leading to injustices. The equitable
doctrine of promissory estoppel evolved to overcome many of these injustices. The very essence
of promissory estoppel is that a promisor is precluded from going back on his or her promise even
though the promise is not supported by consideration moving from the promisee. In Equititrust Ltd
(formerly Equitiloan Ltd) v Franks (2009) 259 ALR 388 at 401, Handley AJA, noted that promissory
estoppel ‘is based on a non-contractual promise or assurance which, in its orthodox form, becomes
binding in equity, so as to restrain the promisor from enforcing his strict legal rights’. In DHJPM
Pty Limited v Blackthorn Resources Limited (2011) 285 ALR 311 at 323, Meagher JA said that ‘a
promissory estoppel operates as an equitable restraint on the exercise or enforcement of contractual
and other rights and is negative in substance’.
269
Ch.12.indd
269
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
tio
bu
us
e
or
di
st
ri
modern doctrine of equitable estoppel can provide relief in various other areas where contractual
remedies are unavailable. Some of these areas include:
• where, during negotiations to enter into a contract, an offeree, believing that the offer will not be
revoked proceeds to act to his or her detriment upon that belief;
• where there has been non-compliance with the statutory requirement of writing with respect to
a contract involving land;
• where the rule in Hoyt’s Pty Ltd v Spencer (1919) 27 CLR 133 precludes the finding of a collateral
contract: Wright v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd [2003] QCA 36;
• where the doctrine of privity prevents a third party to the contract from enforcing it: Trident
General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107 at 145; 80 ALR 574 at 601.
n.
no
tf
or
cl
as
sr
oo
m
12.14 The principles which underlie promissory estoppel were present in nineteenth century case
law, but they were given a more contemporary formulation by Denning J in the case of Central
London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] 1 KB 130. In that case Central London
Property Trust (CLPT) leased a block of flats to High Trees House (HTH) for a period of 99 years.
In 1940, CLPT agreed to accept a reduced rent, which was paid for the next five years by HTH. CLPT
accepted the reduction because of the low occupancy rate for the flats during World War II. In 1945,
with the flats all fully let, CLPT asserted a claim for the full rent thereafter. Denning J said that CLPT
was entitled to the full rent as claimed, on the basis that the agreement for a reduced rent was only
for as long as the flats were not fully let. The critical aspect of the case was the statement by Denning
J that, if CLPT had claimed the full rent for the years 1940–45, it would have failed. Even though the
promise to accept a reduced rent was not supported by consideration, the principle of promissory
estoppel would have been raised against CLPT, preventing recovery of the forgone rent.
ex
is
.
Sa
m
pl
e
on
ly
,
12.15 For many years the operation of promissory estoppel principles was subject to two
important limitations:
1. The promise had to be in the context of one intended to affect a pre-existing legal relationship
between the parties: Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 at 220. In High Trees, this was satisfied
in that the parties were in a lease relationship and the promise was in relation to terms agreed
under that lease.
2. Promissory estoppel could only be used as a defence to an action brought by the promisor
against the promisee. It was said that it could only be used as a ‘shield’ and not as a ‘sword’:
Combe v Combe at 220. In High Trees, this was satisfied as it was HTH, the defendant/promisee,
that would have used promissory estoppel as a defence to a claim for the forgone rent by CLPT,
the plaintiff/promisor.
ex
i
sN
12.16 In Australia, the doctrine of promissory estoppel was first authoritatively accepted by the
High Court in Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406; 46 ALR 1.
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
Proprietary estoppel
12.17 In relation to proprietary estoppel, it always was able to act as a sword as well as a shield and
it is this feature that it has brought to equitable estoppel generally. Proprietary estoppel’s other major
difference from promissory estoppel is its operation in the realm of real property law. This estoppel
operates to restrict the legal rights of landowners if they have encouraged the belief in another, or
at least acquiesced in that other’s belief, that he or she has some entitlement over the property and
that belief has been acted upon; for example, by some alteration or improvement having been made
270
270
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
tio
bu
di
st
ri
12.18 Due to the two methods by which the assumption of an interest could arise, proprietary
estoppel was recognised as comprising two streams. The first is estoppel by encouragement, which
was described by Handley JA in Delaforce v Simpson-Cook (2010) 78 NSWLR 483 at 488, as follows:
n.
to the land. However, no proprietary estoppel claim is available if the plaintiff and defendant have a
legally enforceable contract relating to the property: Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101 at 121;
161 ALR 473 at 482; Riches v Hogben [1985] 2 Qd R 292 at 301. As Young CJ in Eq observed in Barnes
v Alderton [2008] NSWSC 107 at [55], ‘contract and proprietary estoppel are mutually exclusive’.
m
us
e
or
Such an estoppel comes into existence when an owner of property has encouraged another to alter
his or her position in the expectation of obtaining a proprietary interest and that other, in reliance
on the expectation created or encouraged by the property owner, has changed his or her position
to their detriment. If these matters are established equity may compel the owner to give effect to
that expectation in whole or in part.
tf
or
cl
as
sr
oo
12.19 Dillwyn v Llewelyn [1862] All ER 384 is the classic example of estoppel by encouragement.
In that case a father put his son into possession of land which he purported to voluntarily convey
to his son. The conveyance was ineffective. With his father’s assent and approval, the son built and
occupied a house on the land. After the father’s death, the son sought a declaration that he was the
owner of the land in equity and that the trustees of the land be ordered to convey the land to him
absolutely. The House of Lords made these orders.
no
12.20 The other stream of proprietary estoppel is estoppel by acquiescence, which was succinctly
explained by Cranworth LJ in Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129 at 140–1, as follows:
Sa
m
pl
e
on
ly
,
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 error, 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 to state my adverse title; and that it would be dishonest
in me to remain wilfully passive on such an occasion, in order afterwards to profit by the mistake
which I might have prevented.
ex
i
sN
ex
is
.
But it will be observed that to raise such an equity two things are required, first, that the person
expending the money supposes himself to be building on his own land; and, secondly, that the
real owner at the time of the expenditure knows that the land belongs to him and not to the
person expending the money in the belief that he is the owner. For if a stranger builds on my land
knowing it to be mine, there is no principle of equity which would prevent my claiming the land
with the benefit of all the expenditure made on it. There would be nothing in my conduct, active
or passive, making it inequitable in me to assert my legal rights.
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
12.21 For a proprietary estoppel claim to be successful, the plaintiff must have suffered some
detriment. In Barnes v Alderton at [42], Young CJ in Eq put it as follows:
No equity arises to raise a proprietary estoppel unless the person in whose favour it is being raised,
has acted to their prejudice or detriment in some way whether in terms of direct expenditure
or on some other basis. However, the detriment may not necessarily be expenditure of money,
commonly a claimant leaves her job, moves in with the promisor and does his housekeeping for
many years … However, … minor expenditure such as day to day living expenses or minor repairs
will not qualify.
271
Ch.12.indd
271
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
tio
bu
di
st
ri
12.22 It is to be noted that there is not a great difference between the two streams of proprietary
estoppel. Rather, they simply reflect differing levels of passivity on the part of the landowner.
The actions of the landowner, in either encouraging expenditure or acquiescing in expenditure,
constitute fraud in equity. In Ward v Kirkland [1967] Ch 194 at 239, Ungoed-Thomas J observed as
follows:
n.
sr
oo
m
us
e
or
It was suggested before me that there was a distinction between an act which is acquiescing or
encouraging a person in such circumstances to expend money and merely standing aside with the
knowledge that such money was being expended in reliance on having the right which is claimed.
I, for my part, fail to see any substance in this distinction. The fundamental principle of the equity
is unconscionable behaviour, and unconscionable behaviour can arise where there is knowledge
by the legal owner of the circumstances in which the claimant is incurring the expenditure as
much as if he himself were requesting or inciting that expenditure. It seems to me that abstention
as well as request or incitement can fall within the principle from which the recognition of the
claimant’s equity arises.
as
12.23 A commonly cited statement of the relevant elements of proprietary estoppel is that of Fry J
in Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch D 96 at 105–6, where his Honour said:
Sa
m
pl
e
on
ly
,
no
tf
or
cl
A man is not to be deprived of his legal rights unless he has acted in such a way as would make
it fraudulent for him to set up those rights. What, then, are the elements or requisites necessary
to constitute fraud of that description? In the first place the plaintiff must have made a mistake
as to his legal rights. Secondly, the plaintiff must have expended some money or must have done
some act (not necessarily upon the defendant’s land) on the faith of his mistaken belief. Thirdly,
the defendant, the possessor of the legal right, must know of the existence of his own right
which is inconsistent with the right claimed by the plaintiff. If he does not know of it he is in the
same position as the plaintiff, and the doctrine of acquiescence is founded upon conduct with
a knowledge of your legal rights. Fourthly, the defendant, the possessor of the legal right, must
know of the plaintiff ’s mistaken belief of his rights. If he does not, there is nothing which calls
upon him to assert his own rights. Lastly, the defendant, the possessor of the legal right, must have
encouraged the plaintiff in his expenditure of money or in the other acts which he has done, either
directly or by abstaining from asserting his legal right.
The consolidation of promissory and proprietary estoppels
12.25 In Waltons Stores v Maher, the High Court handed down its most significant decision on the
topic of estoppel. The significance of this case was that it consolidated promissory and proprietary
estoppels into the single, and broader, principle of equitable estoppel.
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
sN
ex
is
.
12.24 Later cases indicated that one did not have to establish all these elements to succeed in a
proprietary estoppel claim, with the ‘real test’ being, as Buckley LJ said in Shaw v Applegate [1978] 1
All ER 123 at 131, ‘whether on the facts of the particular case the situation has become such that it
would be dishonest, or unconscionable, for the plaintiff, or for the person having the right sought
to be enforced, to continue to seek to enforce it’. More recently, in Thorner v Major (2009) 3 All ER
945 at 957, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe said that ‘the doctrine [of proprietary estoppel] is based
on three main elements: … a representation or assurance made to the claimant; reliance on it by the
claimant; and detriment to the claimant in consequence of his (reasonable) reliance’.
272
272
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
tio
bu
sr
oo
m
us
e
or
di
st
ri
12.26 In Waltons Stores v Maher, the Mahers owned commercial premises in Nowra which Waltons
was interested in leasing. Waltons wanted to relocate its business in Nowra to new premises and the
Mahers’ site was available. The agreement that was reached was that the Mahers would demolish the
existing premises and erect a new building to meet the specifications of Waltons. A draft agreement
for lease was sent to the solicitors for the Mahers. Some amendments were discussed. Waltons’
solicitors indicated that they expected their client’s agreement to the alterations and said they
would let the Mahers know if the amendments were not acceptable. The Mahers’ solicitors sent the
amended lease, duly executed by the Mahers, to Waltons’ solicitors ‘by way of exchange’. The letter
was not acknowledged by Waltons’ solicitors until two months later. The Mahers began to demolish
the existing premises, as time was critical if they were to complete the demolition and rebuilding in
time for the start of the lease agreement. Waltons was found to know what the Mahers were doing.
However, after receiving the letter and executed lease, Waltons reconsidered its position and a few
months later wrote to the Mahers’ solicitors saying that the lease had not been executed by Waltons
and that Waltons was not proceeding with it. The Mahers sued Waltons for damages for breach of
contract on the basis that Waltons was estopped from denying the existence of the lease.
n.
e
on
ly
,
no
tf
or
cl
as
12.27 The majority of the High Court (Mason CJ, Wilson and Brennan JJ) found for the Mahers
on the basis of equitable estoppel. (The minority of Deane and Gaudron JJ found for the Mahers
on the basis of common law estoppel.) In finding in favour of the Mahers on the basis of equitable
estoppel, the majority did so in circumstances where there was no pre-existing contract between
the parties and on the basis that the Mahers used estoppel as the basis for a cause of action and
not merely as a defensive mechanism. In so doing, the High majority removed the already noted
(see 12.15) limitations on the operation of promissory estoppel. In coming to their decision, the
majority made it clear that promissory estoppel was but a species of the broader principle of
equitable estoppel — the other major species being proprietary estoppel. The underlying rationale
for equitable estoppel was firmly based in the notion of unconscionability or unconscientiousness:
see 2.4–2.5. Mason CJ and Wilson J, at CLR 404; ALR 524, said:
sN
ex
is
.
Sa
m
pl
One may therefore discern in the cases a common thread which links them together, namely, the
principle that equity will come to the relief of a plaintiff who has acted to his detriment on the
basis of a basic assumption in relation to which the other party to the transaction has ‘played such
a part in the adoption of the assumption that it would be unfair or unjust if he were left free to
ignore it’: per Dixon J in Grundt v Great Boulder Pty Gold Mines Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 641 at 675
… Equity comes to the relief of such a plaintiff on the footing that it would be unconscionable
conduct on the part of the other party to ignore the assumption.
ELEMENTS OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
12.28 The essence of the principle of equitable estoppel is equity’s concern with circumstances
in which a plaintiff has acted to its detriment on the basis of a fundamental assumption where
the defendant’s role in the adoption of that assumption by the plaintiff is such that it would be
unconscientious to deny the plaintiff equitable relief. It is the defendant’s failure, having induced
or acquiesced in the adoption or maintenance of the assumption, with knowledge that it would
be relied upon, to fulfil the assumption or otherwise permit the plaintiff to avoid the detriment to
which he or she has been exposed that makes the conduct of the defendant unconscientious and
which attracts the intervention of equity.
273
Ch.12.indd
273
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
tio
bu
di
st
ri
12.29 However, the courts have cautioned against the ‘undisciplined recourse to the principle [of
equitable estoppel] as a ready panacea for real or imagined grievances arising from negotiations
between parties’: Capron v Government of Turks & Caicos Islands [2010] UKPC 2 at [34]. Thus, in
Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v Cobbe [2008] 4 All ER 713 at 737–8, in the context of a property
development agreement between sophisticated commercial parties, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
said:
n.
us
e
or
[E]quitable estoppel is a flexible doctrine which the court can use, in appropriate circumstances,
to prevent injustice caused by the vagaries and inconstancy of human nature. But it is not a sort
of joker or wild card to be used whenever the court disapproves of the conduct of a litigant who
seems to have the law on his side. Flexible though it is, the doctrine must be formulated and
applied in a disciplined and principled way. Certainty is important in property transactions. As
Deane J said in the High Court of Australia in Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 62 ALR 429 at 452:
as
sr
oo
m
Under the law of [Australia] — as, I venture to think, under the present law of England …
proprietary rights fall to be governed by principles of law and not by some mix of judicial
discretion … subjective views about which party ‘ought to win’ … and ‘the formless void
of individual moral opinion’.2
tf
or
cl
It is thus generally difficult to establish an equitable estoppel in a legal relationship between
commercial parties operating at arms length and where their rights and obligations are carefully
and extensively set out in formal documents: Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins Selfserve Pty Ltd (1989) 16
NSWLR 582 at 585–6.
no
Clear and unambiguous representation
Sa
m
pl
e
on
ly
,
12.30 To establish a case based upon principles of equitable estoppel there needs to be a promise
or a sufficiently clear and unambiguous representation. In relation to this requirement, in Tadrous
v Tadrous [2012] NSWCA 16 at [39], Meagher JA observed that ‘an equitable estoppel can be
established notwithstanding that the expectation contains elements that would not be sufficiently
certain to amount to a valid contract or is formed on the basis of vague assurance’. The rationale for
this requirement of certainty stems from the fact that equitable estoppel is founded on the principle
of unconscientiousness and unconscientiousness is difficult to establish if the representation is
ambiguous or unclear: Australian Crime Commission v Gray [2003] NSWCA 318 at [200].
ex
is
.
12.31 The promise or representation can be either express or implied. In Legione v Hateley at CLR
438–9; ALR 1 at 23–4, Mason and Deane JJ said:
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
sN
The requirement that a representation as to existing fact or future conduct must be clear … does
not mean that the representation must be express. Such a clear representation may properly be
seen as implied by the words used or to be adduced from either the failure to speak where there
was a duty to speak or from conduct. Nor is it necessary that a representation be clear in its
2.
Writing extra-judicially about this case, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury said: ‘The message from the House
of Lords in Cobbe v YRML is that it is simply not for the courts to go galumphing in, wielding some
Denningesque sword of justice to rescue a miscalculating, improvident or optimistic property developer
from the commercially unattractive, or even ruthless, actions of a property owner, which are lawful in
common law’: Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, ‘Thoughts on the Law of Equitable Estoppel’ (2010) 84
Australian Law Journal 225, p 230.
274
274
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
bu
di
st
ri
12.32 In relation to the statement by Mason and Deane JJ that the representation does not have to
be totally clear and unambiguous or free of any uncertainty, in Australian Crime Commission v Gray
at [205], Ipp JA proffered the following example:
tio
n.
entirety. It will suffice if so much of the representation as is necessary to found the propounded
estoppel satisfies the requirement.
as
sr
oo
m
us
e
or
Say, for example, a non-contractual representation was made whereby the representor orally
promised to deliver a large quantity of produce specified by a nominated tonnage. Assume that
the promise did not specify imperial tons or metric tonnes in circumstances where it was not
reasonably possible to infer whether tons or tonnes were promised. Assume that the [relying
party] relied on the promise and altered its position to its detriment. Assume further that the
representor made no delivery whatever and repudiated its promise. If, in these circumstances,
the [relying party] sued on the grounds of a promissory estoppel, I suggest that it would be selfevident that the representor would be liable to pay equitable compensation even though it was not
possible to determine whether the quantity promised was in metric or imperial quantities. The
unconscionability of the situation would not be negated by the ambiguity. Equity would intervene
by fashioning relief based on the concept of ‘minimum detriment’.
on
ly
,
no
tf
or
cl
However, in Westpac Banking Corporation v the Bell Group Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2012] WASCA 157 at
[1748]–[1751], Drummond AJA expressed the view that ambiguity or lack of clarity will be fatal to
any promissory estoppel case. However, this was not necessarily so in proprietary estoppel cases where
‘vague and imprecise conduct is often enough to give rise to an equitable proprietary estoppel’. His
Honour, at [1753], observed that this was so because, unlike promissory estoppel cases, proprietary
estoppel cases ‘do not depend on proof of clear representations or promises but on conduct with
respect to property of the parties said to be estopped that is often diffuse and ambiguous, but which
is sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to attract the intervention of equity’.
Sa
m
pl
e
12.33 Furthermore, whether the relevant representation is sufficiently clear and unambiguous is,
as Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe observed in Thorner v Major [2009] 3 All ER 945 at 964, ‘hugely
dependent on context’. Thus, in Accurate Financial Consultants Pty Ltd v Koko Black Pty Ltd [2008]
VSCA 86 at [178], Dodds-Streeton JA said:
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
sN
ex
is
.
A representation which is insufficiently certain or complete to create a contract may found
proprietary estoppel. Where necessary to inhibit unconscionability, equity will construe a
representation robustly in context, to determine its meaning as reasonably understood by the
addressee. In my opinion, the standard of certainty, clarity and completeness required of the
representation cannot sensibly be determined in isolation from other elements of proprietary
estoppel in the circumstances of each particular case. Moreover, ambiguity or indeterminacy
generated by the representor in the context of unconscionable conduct should not confer
immunity from equity’s ‘long arm’.
12.34 In light of the above, it is understandable that in Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v Cobbe
at 726, Lord Scott of Foscote said that, in the context of an arm’s length negotiation between
experienced businessmen, ‘[a]n expectation dependent upon the conclusion of a successful
negotiation is not an expectation of an interest having [sufficient] certainty’ to ground a claim
in equitable estoppel. However, in Thorner v Major, in the context of a family relationship, an
275
Ch.12.indd
275
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
tio
bu
di
st
ri
12.35 For the sufficiently clear and unambiguous promise or representation to lead to a claim
based upon equitable estoppel, in Waltons Stores v Maher at CLR 428–9; ALR 542, Brennan J set out
what he saw as the elements that had to be satisfied, as follows:
n.
expectation generated by somewhat oblique remarks was sufficiently clear and certain to establish a
proprietary estoppel claim.
sr
oo
m
us
e
or
In my opinion, to establish an equitable estoppel, it is necessary for a plaintiff to prove that
(1) the plaintiff assumed that a particular legal relationship then existed between the plaintiff
and the defendant or expected that a particular legal relationship would exist between them
and, in the latter case, that the defendant would not be free to withdraw from the expected legal
relationship; (2) the defendant has induced the plaintiff to adopt that assumption or expectation;
(3) the plaintiff acts or abstains from acting in reliance on the assumption or expectation; (4) the
defendant knew or intended him to do so; (5) the plaintiff ’s action or inaction will occasion
detriment if the assumption or expectation is not fulfilled; and (6) the defendant has failed to act
to avoid that detriment whether by fulfilling the assumption or expectation or otherwise.
ly
,
Assumption or expectation
no
tf
or
cl
as
12.36 Although Brennan J’s statement has not been approved by the High Court as a whole, it has
been the formulation of principle most commonly cited and applied by lower courts in Australia and
has been described as the ‘seminal description’ of the elements of equitable estoppel: The Bell Group
Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation at 409. A closer examination of the six elements is therefore
warranted. In this discussion, for convenience, the party making the promise or representation will
be referred to as ‘the representor’ and the party to whom the promise or representation is made will
be referred to as ‘the relying party’.
sN
ex
is
.
Sa
m
pl
e
on
12.37 In relation to the first element Brennan J said that the relying party must have ‘assumed
that a particular legal relationship then existed between the [relying party] and the [representor] or
expected that a particular legal relationship would exist between them and, in the latter case, that the
[representor] would not be free to withdraw from the expected legal relationship’. However, there is
some doubt as to the need for the requirement that the representor would not be free to withdraw
from the expected legal relationship: EK Nominees Pty Ltd v Woolworths Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1172 at
[259]; Alstom Ltd v Yokogawa Australia Pty Ltd (No 7) [2012] SASC 49 at [1526]. In the subsequent
High Court decision of Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394; 95 ALR 321, no mention of
this requirement is made in any of the judgments of Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson or McHugh JJ when
dealing with the general principles of estoppel.
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
12.38 The nature of the relying party’s assumption is important in relation to the type of estoppel
that arises. If the assumption is one of an existing fact, a case of common law estoppel arises. (In
Waltons Stores v Maher the minority found for the Mahers on this basis, viewing the evidence
as establishing that the Mahers believed that Waltons had completed the exchange of the lease.)
Equitable estoppel will arise if the assumption is that the representor will act in a particular way in
the future. According to Brennan J, the relying party needs to show that he or she assumed that a
particular legal relationship existed or would exist between the parties. According to the majority in
Waltons Stores v Maher, this was established on the facts of that case. A similar approach is detected
in Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Lyndel Nominees Pty Ltd (1998) 153 ALR 198 at 235, where the Full
Court of the Federal Court said that ‘it is a necessary element of the principle that the [representor]
276
276
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
tio
bu
m
us
e
or
di
st
ri
12.39 However, Brennan J’s requirement of a legal relationship would exclude equitable estoppel
from a promise or representation made where the relying party assumes that the representor
will behave in a manner outside the context of a legal relationship. A broader view was taken by
Priestley JA in Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins Selfserve Pty Ltd at 610, where his Honour indicated
that it was enough if the relying party assumed that ‘a promise [would] be performed’. An example
where the representor’s behaviour is outside any existing or expected legal relationship, and which
might come within Priestley JA’s formulation, is where A promises to pay B $200 within 10 days.
The approach of Priestley JA was seemingly approved by Meagher JA (Macfarlan JA agreeing)
in the New South Wales Court of Appeal in DHJPM Pty Limited v Blackthorn Resources Limited
at 324–5.
n.
has created or encouraged an assumption that “a particular legal relationship” or “interest” would
arise or be granted’.
ly
,
no
tf
or
cl
as
sr
oo
12.40 It also appears to be the case that, in all the circumstances, the relying party’s assumption
must be reasonable. A claim based upon equitable estoppel can fail if it is not reasonable for the
relying party to have adopted the assumption. In Salienta Pty Ltd v Clancy [1999] NSWSC 916,
a proposed purchaser of land had been in possession of the property and had had a contract to
purchase it that was subsequently terminated by the vendor following the purchaser’s breach.
The purchaser had spent money on improvements to the property on the assumption that the
expenditure would be credited to the purchase price in a contract to be entered into at a price lower
than that which had been set out in the earlier contract. Bryson J held that the assumption was
unreasonable given that, at all relevant times, the terms upon which the vendor would sell the land
had clearly been made out in writing. Thus, it was not unconscientious for the vendor to assert its
title to, and possession of, the land.
on
Inducement
Sa
m
pl
e
12.41 Initially, it needs to be stressed that it is the assumption that is induced by the promise or
representation, rather than the promise or representation itself, that forms the basis for a claim based
upon equitable estoppel: Waltons Stores v Maher at CLR 413–14, 428–9, 458–9; ALR 531, 542, 564–5;
Commonwealth v Verwayen at CLR 412–13, 444–5, 453–6, 500–2; at ALR 332–3, 356–7, 363–4, 396–8.
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
sN
ex
is
.
12.42 The assumption adopted by the relying party must have been induced by the conduct of
the representor. In most cases the conduct will be the making of the promise or representation. As
already noted (see 12.31), the promise or representation can be express or implied. Silence can give
rise to an implication of a promise, as is illustrated by Waltons Stores v Maher, where the silence and
acquiescence on the part of Waltons gave rise to an implication that it had promised to complete
its transaction with the Mahers. In this context, in Waltons Stores v Maher at CLR 429; ALR 542,
Brennan J said:
For the purposes of the second element, a defendant who has not actively induced the plaintiff to
adopt an assumption or expectation will nevertheless be held to have done so if the assumption
or expectation can be fulfilled only by a transfer of the defendant’s property, a diminution of
his rights or an increase in his obligations and he, knowing that the plaintiff ’s reliance on the
assumption or expectation may cause detriment to the plaintiff if it is not fulfilled, fails to deny to
the plaintiff the correctness of the assumption or expectation on which the plaintiff is conducting
his affairs.
277
Ch.12.indd
277
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
tio
n.
12.43 In relation to the types of conduct by the representor that could be said to induce the
assumption, in Commonwealth v Verwayen, at CLR 444; ALR 356, Deane J said the following:
bu
The cases indicate four main, but not exhaustive, categories in which an affirmative answer to that
question may be justified, namely, where that party:
us
e
or
di
st
ri
(a) has induced the assumption by express or implied representation;
(b) has entered into contractual or other material relations with the other party on the
conventional basis of the assumption;
(c) has exercised against the other party rights which would exist only if the assumption were
correct;
(d) knew that the other party laboured under the assumption and refrained from correcting him
when it was his duty in conscience to do so.
sr
oo
m
Reliance
tf
or
cl
as
12.44 The relying party must act, or refrain from acting, in reliance on the assumption. A causal
link between the assumption and the action or conduct by the relying party must be established. It is
not necessary that the assumption be the only reason that the relying party acted or refrained from
acting. It is sufficient if it was a reason: Flinn v Flinn [1999] 3 VR 712 at 749. The action or conduct
undertaken must be reasonable in all the circumstances: Waltons Stores v Maher at CLR 406; ALR
525. In Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Carotino (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] SASC 42 at [145],
Kelly J said:
on
ly
,
no
[R]eliance on the assumption must be reasonable in two ways. First, it must be reasonable for the
[relying party] to adopt the assumption in question on the strength of the representation made.
Secondly, the action taken by the [relying party] in reliance upon the representation must be itself
reasonable.
ex
is
.
Sa
m
pl
e
12.45 An important factor in assessing reasonableness here will be the characteristics of the relying
party, including whether he or she is advised by lawyers, and whether he or she is well resourced
and used to dealing in commercial transactions. In cases of substantial commercial enterprises that
are legally represented, the court will carefully scrutinise whether the relying party’s actions are
reasonable. If not, an estoppel claim will be denied: Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins Selfserve Pty Ltd at
585. In Waltons Stores v Maher, although the Mahers were legally represented, the facts were such
that both the Mahers and their solicitors were encouraged and induced to make the same mistake,
thereby not precluding the finding of an estoppel.
sN
Knowledge or intention
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
12.46 According to Brennan J in Waltons Stores v Maher, the representor must actually know,
or intend, that the relying party will act or refrain from acting in reliance on the assumption or
expectation. In cases of assumptions based upon a promise or representation, knowledge is ‘easily
inferred’. In cases where the assumption arises outside the context of a promise or representation,
the requirement of knowledge or intention is more difficult to establish: Waltons Stores v Maher
at CLR 423; ALR 538. However, it can be established, as was the case in Waltons Stores v Maher, in
cases where ‘the defendant encourages a plaintiff to adhere to an assumption or expectation already
formed, or acquiesces in an assumption or expectation when, in conscience, objection ought to be
stated’: Pazta Company Pty Ltd v Idelake Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 941 at [26].
278
278
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
tio
bu
di
st
ri
12.47 Furthermore, according to Brennan J, it is not enough that the representor ought to have
known that the relying party would act or refrain from acting in reliance on the assumption or
expectation. A contrary view was suggested by Deane J in Commonwealth v Verwayen at CLR 445;
ALR at 356. In relation to the difference of views between Brennan J and Deane J, in New Zealand
Pelt Export Company Limited v Trade Indemnity New Zealand Limited [2004] VSCA 163 at [99],
Nettle JA, speaking for a unanimous Court of Appeal in Victoria, said:
n.
e
on
ly
,
no
tf
or
cl
as
sr
oo
m
us
e
or
[I]f it were necessary to make a choice, there are at least three reasons to prefer Deane J’s
formulation. In the first place, it is more consistent with the observations of Mason CJ and Wilson J
in Waltons Stores v Maher, that the principle which underlies High Trees estoppel is that the courts
will grant relief to a plaintiff who has acted to his detriment on the basis of a basic assumption in
relation to which the other party has played such a part in the adoption of the assumption that it
would be unfair or unjust if left free to ignore it. That view accords with the broad general ground
of estoppel that where one of two innocent parties must suffer, the loss should fall on him by
whose indiscretion it was occasioned. Secondly, as the joint judgment of Mason CJ and Wilson J
in Waltons Stores v Maher demonstrates, the principle which underlies High Trees estoppel is the
same principle as underlies the kind of estoppel exemplified in Ramsden v Dyson; and the better
view is that in such a case the party to be estopped need not know of the full extent of his or her
legal rights — it is sufficient that he or she ought to have appreciated what they were. Parity of
reasoning suggests that it may be sufficient in a case of High Trees estoppel that the party to be
estopped ought to have known that the other party would be induced by the estopped party’s
conduct to adopt and act on the basis of an assumption or expectation. Thirdly, the source of the
idea that actual knowledge is an essential requirement seems to be the judgment of Lord Denning
in Crabb v Arun District Council [[1976] Ch 179 at 188], and while his Lordship did say in that case
that it was necessary that the party to be estopped know and intend that the other party act on the
basis of the relevant assumption, his Lordship based his judgment on the speech of Lord Cairns in
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co [(1877) 2 App Cas 439 at 448], and Lord Cairns did not speak
in terms of knowledge or intent. The crucial passage of his speech was as follows:
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
sN
ex
is
.
Sa
m
pl
… if parties who have entered into definite and distinct terms involving certain legal
results — certain penalties or legal forfeiture — afterwards by their own act or with their
own consent enter upon a course of negotiation which has the effect of leading one of the
parties to suppose that the strict rights arising under the contract will not be enforced,
or will be kept in suspense, or held in abeyance, the person who otherwise might have
enforced those rights will not be allowed to enforce them where it would be inequitable
having regard to the dealings which have thus taken place between the parties. My Lords,
I repeat that I attribute to the Appellant no intention here to take advantage of, to lay a
trap, but it appears to me that both parties by entering upon the negotiation which they
entered upon, made it an inequitable thing that the exact period of six months dating
from the month of October should afterwards be measured out as against the Respondent
as the period during which the repairs must be executed.
The approach of Nettle JA was endorsed by Macaulay J in Leading Synthetics Pty Ltd v Adroit
Insurance Group Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 467 at [69].
Detriment
12.48 The relying party must suffer, or stand to suffer, detriment if the assumption made by it is
not fulfilled. In Grundt v Great Boulder Pty Gold Mines Ltd at 674–5, Dixon J said:
279
Ch.12.indd
279
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
or
di
st
ri
bu
tio
n.
[T]he basal purpose of the doctrine [of estoppel] … is to avoid or prevent a detriment to the
party asserting the estoppel by compelling the opposite party to adhere to the assumption upon
which the [relying party] acted or abstained from acting. This means that the real detriment
or harm from which the law seeks to give protection is that which would flow from the change
of position if the assumption were deserted that led to it. So long as the assumption is adhered
to, the party who altered his situation upon the faith of it cannot complain. His complaint is
that when afterwards the other party makes a different state of affairs the basis of an assertion
of right against him then, if it is allowed, his own original change of position will operate as a
detriment.
us
e
The principle enunciated by Dixon J applies to both promissory and proprietary estoppels: Delaforce
v Simpson-Cook at 491.
as
sr
oo
m
12.49 There must be a link between the detriment and the assumption or expectation. In Thompson
v Palmer (1933) 49 CLR 507 at 547, Dixon J said that the relying party must suffer detriment in the
sense that, ‘as a result of adopting [the assumption or expectation] as the basis of action or inaction,
[the relying party] will have placed himself in a position of material disadvantage if departure from
the assumption is permitted’.
no
tf
or
cl
12.50 The notion of detriment conjures up the idea that the relying party will be worse off in
some way. It is not enough that the relying party merely acted upon the representor’s promise. In Je
Maintiendrai Pty Ltd v Quaglia (1980) 26 SASR 101 at 106, the Full Court in South Australia held
that it was necessary that the going back on the promise or representation would ‘result in some
detriment and therefore some injustice’ to the relying party.
m
pl
e
on
ly
,
12.51 In Walsh v Walsh [2012] NSWCA 57 at 14, Meagher JA, speaking for a unanimous Court
of Appeal, said that ‘[t]he detriment which can support an estoppel by encouragement need not
be financial and it is not necessary, where that detriment is the expenditure of money, that the
expenditure have been on the property in respect of which the estoppel is sought to be enforced’.
The detriment suffered cannot be minor. It has been variously described as needing to be material
or significant or substantial. In Sullivan v Sullivan [2006] NSWCA 312 at [20], Handley JA said:
ex
is
.
Sa
The object of the exercise is to do equity and for that purpose ‘detriment’ is no narrow or technical
concept. It need not consist of expenditure of money or other quantifiable financial disadvantage
so long as it is something substantial. The requirement must be approached as part of a broad
inquiry as to whether departure from a promise would be unconscionable in all the circumstances.
While a single peppercorn may constitute valuable consideration which can support a simple
contract it seems to me that the loss of such an item would not constitute a ‘material detriment’,
‘material disadvantage’, or a ‘significant disadvantage’ for the purposes of the law of estoppel. It may
seem strange that there should be such a distinction. However in the first case the consideration
has been accepted as the price of a bargain which the law strives to uphold. Promissory estoppels
and estoppels by representation lack this element of mutuality, and the relevant detriment has
not been accepted by the party estopped as the price for binding himself to the representation or
promise.
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
sN
In Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd v Helicopter Charter Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 298 at 307–8, Handley JA
said:
280
280
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
tio
di
st
ri
bu
The relevant detriment is not the loss flowing from non-fulfilment of the promise or assurance.
The detriment that makes an estoppel enforceable is that which the [relying party] would suffer,
as a result of his or her original change of position, if the assumption which induced it was
repudiated by the [representor].
n.
12.52 In assessing the existence of detriment one must distinguish between expectation and
reliance loss. It is clear that it is the reliance loss, and not expectation loss, that goes to establishing
detriment. In Delaforce v Simpson-Cook at 491, Handley AJA summarised the position as follows:
us
e
or
In the context of the facts of Waltons Stores v Maher, the expectation loss suffered by the Mahers was
the loss of rent they expected Waltons to pay during the term of the anticipated lease. The reliance
loss was the wasted expenditure incurred in demolishing and rebuilding the premises. It was the
reliance loss, and not the expectation loss, that established detriment in that case.
sr
oo
m
12.53 The significance of detriment is that it is this factor which makes it unconscientious or
unjust for the representor to depart from the promise or representation. In Waltons Stores v Maher,
at CLR 404; ALR 524, Mason CJ and Wilson J said:
tf
or
cl
as
[E]quity will come to the relief of a [relying party] who has acted to his detriment on the basis of
a basic assumption in relation to which the other party has ‘played such a part in the adoption of
the assumption that it would be unfair or unjust if he were left free to ignore it’: per Dixon J in
Grundt [at 675]… Equity comes to the relief of such a [relying party] on the footing that it would
be unconscionable conduct on the part of the other party to ignore the assumption.
no
Failure to avoid detriment
on
ly
,
12.54 The representor must have failed to act to avoid the relying party suffering detriment. One
way in which action could be taken to avoid the detriment is by simply fulfilling the assumption or
expectation.
sN
ex
is
.
Sa
m
pl
e
12.55 However, it must be understood that the object of equitable estoppel is not to compel the
representor to fulfil the assumption or expectation, but rather to avoid detriment if the assumption
or expectation goes unfulfilled. Thus, this might be done by the representor advising the relying
party that the assumption is mistaken before irreversible detriment has been incurred. In this
respect, in Vella v Wah Lai Investment (Australia) Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 748 at [169], in a passage
subsequently approved by the Victorian Court of Appeal in ACN 074 971 109 (as trustee for the
Argot Unit Trust) v The National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd (2008) 21 VR 351 at 391,
Campbell J said:
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
If one party, who has encouraged another to act on the basis that a particular state of affairs
exists, gives notice that that state of affairs should no longer be regarded as existing then, unless
the other party has already irretrievably prejudiced himself by acting on the assumption that
that state of affairs exists, the estoppel will cease to bind, either immediately or after the other
party has been given reasonable notice. This is the result of the principle that the relief which is
appropriate to give effect to an estoppel is the minimum relief which would prevent the injustice
arising by the person estopped departing from the assumption or expectation which has been
induced.
281
Ch.12.indd
281
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
tio
bu
di
st
ri
12.56 A question with respect to equitable estoppel is whether a clause in a contract which denies
any legal effect to previous negotiations and representations can prevent a relying party from pleading
a case based upon equitable estoppel. In relation to such entire agreement clauses, in Franklins
Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd (2009) 76 NSWLR 603 at 734; 264 ALR 15 at 141, Campbell JA,
speaking for the Court of Appeal on this point, said:
n.
Entire agreement clauses and equitable estoppel
as
sr
oo
m
us
e
or
I would accept that an entire agreement clause … that … specifically denies efficacy to all previous
negotiations and representations, could not overcome an equitable estoppel, once established. An
‘entire agreement clause’ might create a factual difficulty in the way of proof of the elements of
equitable estoppel, most obviously, proof of inducement or reliance, and I would not want to rule
out the possibility that it might be relevant to any precise remedy granted (though I cannot at
present think of an example of when that might occur). However, it does not create an insuperable
obstacle of principle. Consistently with the equitable principle that it will not allow a contract to
be an instrument of fraud, equity would not permit an entire agreement clause to stultify the
operation of its doctrines.
cl
RELIEF BASED UPON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
no
tf
or
12.57 Establishing the elements of equitable estoppel gives rise to an equity in favour of the relying
party. This means that the relying party is entitled to some equitable relief. The relief is not based
upon there being a promise or representation, but rather upon the expectation that the promise or
representation generated: Giumelli v Giumelli at CLR 121; ALR 482.
pl
e
on
ly
,
12.58 It has often be said that there needs to be proportionality between the relief ordered
and the detriment suffered, or that the court will, in making its orders, determine the minimum
equity required to do justice to the relying party: Waltons Stores v Maher at CLR 419; ALR 535;
Commonwealth v Verwayen at CLR 417, 429–30, 441–2; ALR 336, 345–6, 354. However, this is no
longer the case. In Walsh v Walsh at [31], Meagher JA stated the current position as follows:
sN
ex
is
.
Sa
m
There is no governing principle that requires that the relief granted be that which is the minimum
necessary to do justice. To the extent that there is a prima facie entitlement to relief on the basis
that the adopted expectation is to be made good, that entitlement must be weighed against any
injustice to the estopped party in doing so and the detriment suffered by the party who has acted
upon the induced expectation. Consideration should also be given to whether the proposed relief
has any adverse effects on the interests of third parties.
12.60 Thus, in Mobil Oil v Lyndel Nominees at 238, the court concluded that relief in such cases
‘is intended to relieve against detriment suffered and not to make good an expectation’. Similarly, in
ACN 074 971 109 v The National Mutual Life Association of Australasia at 394, Dodds-Streeton JA said:
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
12.59 In exercising its discretion to make an order in favour of the relying party, in promissory
estoppel cases the courts have made it clear that the orders to be granted are generally reliance based
in the sense that they are designed to prevent the relying party from suffering detriment: Waltons
Stores v Maher at CLR 427; ALR 540; Commonwealth v Verwayen at CLR 411–12, 429, 501; ALR
331–2, 345, 397–8. This is because, satisfying the relying party’s equity will not usually require going
beyond preventing that party from suffering detriment.
282
282
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
or
di
st
ri
12.61 However, it is clear that, in proprietary estoppel cases, a court will usually frame an
expectation based order in the sense of making good the assumption or expectation relied upon by
the relying party, rather than on the avoidance of detriment: Delaforce v Simpson-Cook at 492–7. In
Ramsden v Dyson, at 170, Lord Kingsdown said:
bu
tio
n.
[The] doctrine [of equitable estoppel] … permits the court to do what is required in order to avoid
detriment to the party who has been induced to act upon an assumed state of affairs … [T]hus …
according to the circumstances of any given case, the relief required may be less than making good
the assumption on the basis of which the plaintiff was encouraged to deal … [W]hat is required to
satisfy the equity which arises against an estopped party depends on the circumstances.
m
us
e
If a man … under an expectation created or encouraged by the landlord that he shall have a
certain interest [acts to his detriment] upon the faith of such expectation … a Court of equity will
compel the landlord to give effect to such … expectation.
12.62
sr
oo
Similarly, in Donis v Donis (2007) 19 VR 577 at 582–3, Nettle JA said the following:
Sa
m
pl
e
on
ly
,
no
tf
or
cl
as
As the … decision in Giumelli v Giumelli shows … there is no such restriction in cases where the
expectation which is encouraged is the acquisition of an interest in property. In such cases the
remedy relates to the understanding of the parties and the expectation that has been encouraged.
Prima facie the estopped party can only fulfil his or her equitable obligation by making good the
expectation which he or she has encouraged. The estopped party, having promised to confer a
proprietary interest on the party entitled to the benefit of the estoppel, and the latter having acted
upon the promise to his or her detriment, is bound in conscience to make good the expectation
… The prima facie position will yield to individual circumstances. Principle and authority compel
the view that where a plaintiff ’s expectation or assumption is uncertain or extravagant or out of
all proportion to the detriment which the plaintiff has suffered, the court should recognise that
the claimant’s equity may be better satisfied in another and possibly more limited way … [B]efore
granting relief the court is required to consider all of the circumstances of the case, including the
possible effects on third parties, and to avoid going beyond what is required for conscientious
conduct or would do injustice to others. But that does not mean that the court is required to be
‘constitutionally parsimonious’ or that it is necessary for there to be substantial correspondence
between expectation and the monetary value of the detriment suffered, or which but for the relief
to be accorded would be suffered.
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
sN
ex
is
.
12.63 In Giumelli v Giumelli the High Court said there was nothing in earlier cases that precluded
a court from granting relief in equitable estoppel cases on the basis of making good the relying
party’s assumption or expectation. In Giumelli v Giumelli at CLR 123; ALR 484, Gleeson CJ,
McHugh, Gummow and Callinan JJ cited with approval a statement by Deane J in Commonwealth
v Verwayen at CLR 445; ALR 356, where his Honour said:
[T]he question whether departure from the assumption would be unconscionable must be resolved
not by reference to some preconceived formula framed to serve as a universal yardstick but by reference
to all the circumstances of the case, including the reasonableness of the conduct of the [relying] party
in acting upon the assumption and the nature and extent of the detriment which he would sustain by
acting upon the assumption if departure from the assumed state of affairs were permitted.
The types of orders that can be made in fulfilling the expectation include ordering a transfer of
the property to the relying party, the imposition of a trust, or granting a charge or lien over the
283
Ch.12.indd
283
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
tio
bu
us
e
or
di
st
ri
12.64 In Giumelli v Giumelli, parents promised their son that, if he continued to live on a property
owned by them, they would subdivide it and give him the portion containing the house in which he
lived. On the basis of this the son stayed and gave up a career opportunity that would have taken him
away from the property. The relationship between the parents and son broke down when the son
married a woman of whom his parents did not approve, and they refused to transfer the property
to the son. The High Court granted the son monetary relief to the value of the property that should
have been transferred to him by his parents. The High Court did not order a transfer of the property
to the son. However, the monetary compensation was nevertheless a remedy based upon the son’s
lost expectation rather than reliance loss or any actual detriment suffered by the son.
n.
property. Ultimately it is a question of what is appropriate in the circumstances: Tadrous v Tadrous
at [43]–[49].
as
sr
oo
m
12.65 Thus, generally relief in promissory estoppel cases will be reliance based whereas in
proprietary estoppel cases it will be expectation based. In ACN 074 971 109 v The National Mutual
Life Association of Australasia at 394, Dodds-Streeton JA summarised the current state of the law on
relief for equitable estoppel as follows:
e
on
ly
,
no
tf
or
cl
It is true that in Giumelli v Giumelli, Gleeson CJ and McHugh, Gummow and Callinan JJ said
that Verwayen did not foreclose as a matter of doctrine relief making good the assumption in
an appropriate case. But nothing which their Honours said in Giumelli suggests that there was
any change from the view expressed in Verwayen that the doctrine of equitable estoppel enables
a court to do what is required to avoid detriment to the party who has been induced to act upon
an assumed state of affairs, and thus that the relief required in a given case may be less than
making good the assumption. Accordingly, since Giumelli, in the majority of commercial cases
not involving the acquisition of an interest in real property in which the doctrine of equitable
estoppel had been invoked, the relief accorded it has been no more than was necessary to avoid
detriment.
m
pl
FUSION OF EQUITABLE AND COMMON LAW ESTOPPELS?
12.67 The principal difficulty in fusing common law and equitable estoppel lies in reconciling
their very different origins and purposes so as to decide upon the form that a single doctrine
would ultimately take. The different functions of the estoppels in the two jurisdictions are most
apparent in the remedies they provide. The contrary positions adopted by Mason CJ and Deane J
in Commonwealth v Verwayen reflect the differing emphasis they placed upon the two jurisdictions
when formulating their own particular model. Deane J’s unified estoppel reflected common law
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
sN
ex
is
.
Sa
12.66 The complexity attendant upon having so many varieties of estoppel makes unification an
attractive prospect. The successful merger of promissory and proprietary estoppels in Waltons Stores
v Maher has fuelled speculation as to the possibility of an even more challenging simplification —
the joining of common law and equitable estoppels. The leading advocates of this were Mason CJ and
Deane J, neither of whom agreed with the model designed by the other and both of whom have now
vacated the High Court bench. While the present members of the High Court have not dismissed
the possibility of unification they are yet to find a suitable occasion for the implementation of such
an innovation. It is clear, however, that the legacy left them by Mason CJ and Deane J is far from
uncomplicated.
284
284
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
tio
bu
us
e
or
di
st
ri
roots at the expense of equitable influences. He denied that it could act as a sword and limited its role
to establishing the state of affairs by which the court was to resolve the dispute — in other words,
his estoppel was to have the evidentiary quality so often referred to at common law. Consequently,
his view that the ‘prima facie entitlement’ of a successful claimant is simply to have the assumption
made good is a logical conclusion. However, he did admit that the availability of that remedy should
be qualified if such ‘relief would exceed what could be justified by the requirements of conscientious
conduct and would be unjust to the estopped party’: Commonwealth v Verwayen at CLR 442; ALR
354. For a number of reasons, Deane J’s view has not attracted much support from commentators or
his fellow judges. Its chief failure would seem to be the rejection of estoppel as a source of substantive
rights — a position to which it would now seem quite difficult to return.
n.
m
12.68 The proposal by Mason CJ is very different from that of Deane J. In Commonwealth
v Verwayen, at CLR 413; ALR 333, Mason CJ said:
on
ly
,
no
tf
or
cl
as
sr
oo
[I]t would confound principle and common sense to maintain that estoppel by conduct occupies
a special field which has as its hallmark function the making good of assumptions. There is no
longer any purpose to be served in recognising an evidentiary form of estoppel operating in the
same circumstances as the emergent rules of substantive estoppel. The result is that it should be
accepted that there is but one doctrine of estoppel, which provides that a court of common law
or equity may do what is required, but not more, to prevent a person who has relied upon an
assumption as to a present, past or future state of affairs (including a legal state of affairs), which
assumption the party estopped has induced him to hold, from suffering detriment in reliance
upon the assumption as a result of the denial of its correctness. A central element of that doctrine
is that there must be a proportionality between the remedy and the detriment which is its purpose
to avoid. It would be wholly inequitable and unjust to insist upon a disproportionate making
good of the relevant assumption.
m
pl
e
12.69 The impetus for unification seems to have lessened since the decision in Commonwealth
v Verwayen. Writing extra-judicially in 2006, Justice Handley of the New South Wales Court of
Appeal said:
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
sN
ex
is
.
Sa
Any single overarching doctrine [of estoppel] would be at such a high level of abstraction that
it would serve no useful purpose. Each form of estoppel has its own elements, although some
are common to others. The similarities warrant their recognition as a form of estoppel but the
differences make each a distinct form with its own history and requirements. There is no more
need for a single overarching doctrine for estoppel than there is for torts. Estoppel by deed, by
grant, and by convention are common law doctrines which preclude contradiction but do not
require a change of position induced by belief in the truth of facts. Estoppel by representation,
developed in equity and borrowed by law, precludes contradiction if the representee’s belief
in the truth of the representation induced a detrimental change of position and the rights of
the parties are governed by the facts as represented. Proprietary and promissory estoppels are
equitable. Proprietary estoppel by encouragement enforces proprietary expectations which the
person estopped has created or encouraged when their repudiation would be unconscionable.
Proprietary estoppel by standing by enforces an equity against the fraud of an owner who seeks
to rely on his property rights to profit from the known mistake of another. Promissory estoppel is
a defensive equity which restrains the enforcement of positive rights by a person whose promise
induced a change of position which makes such enforcement inequitable. The distinctly equitable
285
Ch.12.indd
285
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595
di
st
ri
12.70 In a similar vein, also writing extra-judicially in 2007, Justice Brereton of the Supreme
Court of New South Wales said:
bu
tio
n.
estoppels change the rights of the parties, while the others change them indirectly by changing
the facts. Each form has a separate history and a distinct source in law or in equity. The various
rationales — recital, grant, convention, representation, positive promise or encouragement, fraud
and mistake, and negative promise — are different. There is no single overarching principle.3
C
op
y
rig
ht
L
ex
i
sN
ex
is
.
Sa
m
pl
e
on
ly
,
no
tf
or
cl
as
sr
oo
m
us
e
or
That there is no overarching doctrine of common principle is reflected in the disparate operation
of the different estoppels: some estoppels are founded on unconscionability, which is irrelevant to
others; some estoppels alter the rights of the parties, others alter only the facts; some, once raised,
are permanent, whereas others may be only temporary.4
3.
4.
K R Handley, Estoppel by Conduct and Election, Thomson, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2006, pp 20–21.
P L G Brereton, ‘Equitable Estoppel in Australia: The Court of Conscience in the Antipodes’ (2007) 81
Australian Law Journal 638, p 643.
286
286
10/10/2012
05:22:31
200595

12 distribution. or use

Transcription

Similar documents

Estoppel Assoc Prof Cameron Stewart

How to Buy Notes and Mortgages DOCUMENTING THE NOTE PURCHASE

W Tenants, landowners need to take caution

The Premier Trade Shows Where

Is there a way of claiming of the “four walls” GCCC Contract?

Publications E-DIRT NEWSLETTER -- Summer, 2000 Articles

March is here, we do afear, that we won`t drink too much green beer!

EQUITY - RBFCU

Medsin at PHAST

INVESTMENT CRITERIA ACTIVE PLATFORM

Registry Strives to Tame the Unburdening Beasts