82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cn}}[[Lord Denning]]’s famous [[High Trees]] case, reinvigorating the old doctrine of Promissory Estoppel first articulated in way back in the day by Lord Lance Cairns<ref>Not really Lance Cairns. Just Lord Cairns. No relation, though by some spooky irony he did play with a shoulderless bat and knocked towering sixes out of the park.<ref> {{casenote|Hughes|Metropolitan Railway}}. | {{cn}}[[Lord Denning]]’s famous [[High Trees]] case — though at the time he was not [[Lord Denning]], but mere [[Denning J]] of the [[King’s Bench Division]] of the High Court — reinvigorating the old doctrine of Promissory Estoppel first articulated in way back in the day by Lord Lance Cairns<ref>Not really Lance Cairns. Just Lord Cairns. No relation, though by some spooky irony he did play with a shoulderless bat and knocked towering sixes out of the park.</ref> {{casenote|Hughes|Metropolitan Railway}}. | ||
===Facts=== | ===Facts=== | ||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
At the end of the war, with the building back to near-full occupancy, CLPT gave notice that the rent was going back up to £2,500 — fair enough, you’d think — and claimed arrears of £7,916 for previous five years — ''total'' dick move, right?. | At the end of the war, with the building back to near-full occupancy, CLPT gave notice that the rent was going back up to £2,500 — fair enough, you’d think — and claimed arrears of £7,916 for previous five years — ''total'' dick move, right?. | ||
Enter people’s hero [[ | ===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. | |||
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.” | |||
:“In each case the court held the promise to be binding on the party making it, even though under the old [[common law]] it might be difficult to find any [[consideration]] for it. The courts have not gone so far as to give a [[cause of action]] in [[damages]] for the breach of such a promise, but they have refused to allow the party making it to act inconsistently with it.” | |||
This doctrine may be used as a “shield but not a sword”, so to say. | |||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} |