39:
164:. All parties had assumed that the two leases were accompanied by a statutory right of renew when they came to an end. Based on this assumption, both of the claimant companies had spent money improving their premises. However, it transpired that Liverpool Victoria was under no legal obligation to renew. The claimants argued that Liverpool Victoria should be
201:
unconscionable for a party to be permitted to deny that which, knowingly, or unknowingly, he has allowed or encouraged another to assume to his detriment than to enquiring whether the circumstances can be fitted within the confines of some preconceived formula serving as a universal yardstick for every form of unconscionable behaviour
226:
It also underlines the importance of clear communication with the landlord as a clear written promise from the landlord that the business tenants could renew their premises leases, having looked at the leases, would have enabled the business tenants to benefit somewhat from the works they had carried
204:
The inquiry which I have to make therefore, as it seems to me, is simply whether, in all the circumstances of this case, it was unconscionable for the defendants to seek to take advantage of the mistake which, at the material time, everybody shared, and, in approaching that, I must consider the cases
213:
was only a case applicable to situations where someone had stood by without protest as his rights were infringed. Knowledge of one of the parties alleged to be estopped is just one of many relevant factors. One should consider all the circumstances. On the facts of the case, the claim by Taylor
200:
LR 1 HL 129 principle – whether you call it proprietary estoppel, estoppel by acquiescence or estoppel by encouragement is really immaterial – requires a very much broader approach which is directed rather at ascertaining whether, in particular individual circumstances, it would be
214:
Fashions failed, with 'regret', because they had not been encouraged in their belief by
Liverpool Victoria. Old & Campbell, however, did succeed because they had been encouraged to spend a very large sum in the belief that they could renew.
222:
The case underlines the importance of businesses renting leased premises to be well-advised before entering into their leases, and in particular to be aware of the pitfall of doing authorised works without business security of tenure.
190:
in a case of mere passivity, it is readily intelligible that there must be shown a duty to speak, protest or interfere which cannot normally arise in the absence of knowledge or at least a suspicion of the true position
179:
noted that Mr Scott and Mr
Essayan for the claimants said: one’s state of mind was irrelevant. Mr Millett for Liverpool Victoria argued that unconscionability was necessary, following Fry J in the earlier leading case of
168:
from not renewing, based on their reliance. In response, Liverpool
Victoria argued that estoppel was not relevant because they had not acted unconscionably but simply by mistake.
492:
38:
176:
114:
391:
156:
The claimants were two companies, Taylor
Fashions Ltd and Old & Campbell Ltd, who held leases on two business premises on Westover Road,
487:
477:
405:
256:
285:
482:
148:. Due to a common mistake and no element of enticement to believe that mistake, estoppel was not available on the facts.
365:
61:
Taylor
Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society and Old & Campbell v Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society
129:; no statutory right to renew business lease; common mistake; extent of unconscionability required for estoppel
325:
17:
419:
249:
339:
205:
of the two plaintiffs separately because it may be that quite different considerations apply to each.
196:
165:
145:
126:
273:
161:
93:
242:
182:
141:
377:
351:
299:
81:
395:
381:
194:
Furthermore the more recent cases indicate, in my judgment, that the application of the
355:
329:
315:
471:
311:
98:
409:
137:
Taylor
Fashions Ltd and Old & Campbell Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd
289:
157:
160:. Both companies asked to have their leases renewed by their landlord, the
430:
234:
238:
120:
110:
105:
74:
66:
56:
48:
31:
188:
250:
32:Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees
18:Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees
8:
87:
257:
243:
235:
37:
28:
392:Collier v P&MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd
441:
7:
406:Yeomans Row Management Ltd v Cobbe
162:Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd
25:
286:Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co
493:1982 in United Kingdom case law
1:
52:High Court, Chancery Division
488:High Court of Justice cases
509:
462:Landmark Cases in Land Law
366:Waltons Stores Ltd v Maher
43:Westover Road, Bournemouth
478:English contract case law
416:
402:
388:
374:
362:
348:
336:
326:D & C Builders v Rees
322:
308:
296:
282:
270:
125:
36:
277:(1862) 4 De GF&J 517
209:Oliver J clarified that
420:Estoppel in English law
207:
483:English land case law
140:is a leading case in
340:Ogilvy v Hope Davies
146:proprietary estoppel
127:Proprietary estoppel
186:. The judge noted:
369:(1988) 164 CLR 387
274:Dillwyn v Llewelyn
460:N Gravells (ed),
426:
425:
183:Willmott v Barber
133:
132:
16:(Redirected from
500:
449:
446:
259:
252:
245:
236:
142:English land law
100:
89:
70:27 February 1979
41:
29:
21:
508:
507:
503:
502:
501:
499:
498:
497:
468:
467:
457:
452:
447:
443:
439:
427:
422:
412:
398:
384:
378:Jennings v Rice
370:
358:
352:Crabb v Arun DC
344:
332:
318:
304:
300:High Trees case
292:
278:
266:
263:
233:
220:
197:Ramsden v Dyson
174:
154:
97:
91:
85:
79:
44:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
506:
504:
496:
495:
490:
485:
480:
470:
469:
466:
465:
456:
453:
451:
450:
440:
438:
435:
434:
433:
424:
423:
417:
414:
413:
403:
400:
399:
389:
386:
385:
375:
372:
371:
363:
360:
359:
349:
346:
345:
337:
334:
333:
323:
320:
319:
309:
306:
305:
297:
294:
293:
283:
280:
279:
271:
268:
267:
265:Estoppel cases
264:
262:
261:
254:
247:
239:
232:
229:
219:
216:
173:
170:
153:
150:
131:
130:
123:
122:
118:
117:
112:
108:
107:
103:
102:
76:
72:
71:
68:
64:
63:
58:
57:Full case name
54:
53:
50:
46:
45:
42:
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
505:
494:
491:
489:
486:
484:
481:
479:
476:
475:
473:
463:
459:
458:
454:
445:
442:
436:
432:
429:
428:
421:
415:
411:
408:
407:
401:
397:
396:EWCA Civ 1329
394:
393:
387:
383:
380:
379:
373:
368:
367:
361:
357:
354:
353:
347:
342:
341:
335:
331:
328:
327:
321:
317:
314:
313:
312:Combe v Combe
307:
302:
301:
295:
291:
288:
287:
281:
276:
275:
269:
260:
255:
253:
248:
246:
241:
240:
237:
230:
228:
224:
217:
215:
212:
206:
202:
199:
198:
192:
187:
185:
184:
178:
171:
169:
167:
163:
159:
151:
149:
147:
143:
139:
138:
128:
124:
119:
116:
113:
109:
106:Case opinions
104:
95:
83:
77:
73:
69:
65:
62:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
35:
30:
27:
19:
461:
444:
404:
390:
382:EWCA Civ 159
376:
364:
350:
343:1 All ER 683
338:
324:
310:
298:
284:
272:
225:
221:
218:Significance
210:
208:
203:
195:
193:
189:
181:
175:
155:
136:
135:
134:
60:
26:
158:Bournemouth
111:Decision by
472:Categories
455:References
356:EWCA Civ 7
330:EWCA Civ 3
316:EWCA Civ 7
78:EWHC Ch 1
75:Citations
431:Estoppel
231:See also
211:Willmott
177:Oliver J
172:Judgment
166:estopped
121:Keywords
115:Oliver J
448:151-152
410:UKHL 55
67:Decided
464:(2013)
303:KB 130
290:UKHL 1
88:All ER
437:Notes
227:out.
152:Facts
49:Court
418:see
80:251
144:on
101:133
96:576
94:WLR
90:897
84:159
474::
99:QB
92:2
86:1
82:EG
258:e
251:t
244:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
