Equity Law: In Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Doueihi & Ors [2014]

In Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Doueihi & Ors [2014] NSWSC 1717 (4 December 2014) White J discusses the principles underlying equitable estoppel (the term ‘equitable estoppel’ includes promissory and proprietary estoppel and estoppel by encouragement and acquiescence) [127-249]. In particular, White J stressed the differences between the requirements of common law conventional estoppel (estoppel in pais) and equitable estoppel in both commercial and domestic situations.
Do the differences discussed by White J accord with those addressed in leading authorities such as Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387, Silovi Pty Ltd v Barbara (1988) 13 NSWLR 466 and Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394?
To what extent do these differences exemplify the origins of the role of equity’s auxiliary jurisdiction as ‘the conscience of the law?’

THIS PAPER HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY OUR WRITERS

Order your custom paper

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>