Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:


===Judgment===
===Judgment===
Enter people’s hero [[Denning J]], who quite correctly, was having ''none'' of this. Note that the actual action was a test case only seeking rent for periods in 19145, so technically the rent from 1940 wasn’t at issue, so these first instance observations of the future [[Master of the Rolls]], albeit then only a High Court judge, in short pants and so on — made ''[[obiter dicta]]'' — not binding statements of the [[common law]]. But they were influential all the same — [[Lord Denning]] found them persuasive later in his career when he ''was'' [[Master of the Rolls]]! — and int the short term they persuaded CLPT not to waste its time and money pursuing the back rent.
Enter people’s hero [[Denning J]], who quite correctly, was having ''none'' of this. Note that the actual action was a test case only seeking rent for periods in 1945, so technically the rent from 1940 wasn’t at issue, so these first instance observations of the future [[Master of the Rolls]], albeit then only a High Court judge, in short pants and so on — made ''[[obiter dicta]]'' — not binding statements of the [[common law]]. But they were influential all the same — [[Lord Denning]] found them persuasive later in his career when he ''was'' [[Master of the Rolls]]! — and int the short term they persuaded CLPT not to waste its time and money pursuing the back rent.


Firstly, he felt recent authorities were not strictly cases of [[estoppel]] but really promises that were “intended to be binding, intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on.”
Firstly, he felt recent authorities were not strictly cases of [[estoppel]] but really promises that were “intended to be binding, intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on.”