DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL

Bhumika Bhattarai
15005
5th Sem
 A rule of evidence whereby a person is blocked from
denying the truth of a fact that has already been settled.
The principle of estoppel is in place to protect a person
against a loss suffered as a result from a reliance on a
promise or representation.
The doctrine applies where an officer or other
representative of an administrative agency:
(1) makes an adequate statement of fact or fact and law
which is
(2) within his delegated or other lawful authority where
(3) the person dealing with that officer or representative
relies on the statement to his detriment.
 In Norfolk County Council v Secretary of State for the
Environment (1973) the council resolved to refuse planning
permission for a factory extension. In error the officer sent a
notification to the developer indicating that planning
permission had been granted. It was decided that the
notification was not binding on the council since the officer
had no authority to send the wrong notification with the
consequence that the council was not bound, that is, estopped
or prevented from denying the validity of the notification, so
that in law no planning permission had been granted.
 Requirements for common law
estoppel
The first of these requirements is that there should be
an adequate statement of fact or of fact and law. In Re
Suruk Miah(1976) it was decided that a letter from the
Department of Employment indicating that a work
permit would be granted to a person wishing to come to
the UK to work was not an adequate representation: the
law required that person to present a work permit on
arrival if he was to be allowed to enter the country. In
other words, the letter was not binding on the
Department.
The second of the requirements for common law estoppel is that the
relevant statement or representation should be made within the
delegated or other lawful authority of the officer. No statutory
authority can be bound by an ultra vires act or representation. In
Southend-on-Sea Corporation v Hodgson (Wickford) Ltd (1962),an
officer represented that no planning permission was necessary for a
proposed development of land as a builders yard. The council
disagreed and it was decided by the court that it was not bound by
the officers representation, which was made without any delegated
authority, so that the council was free to exercise its statutory
discretion to serve an enforcement notice to prevent the lands use as
a builders yard. Equally, if the authority in question is obliged to
exercise a statutory duty, it cannot be estopped or prevented from so
doing by a representation or statement of an officer acting without or
outside any delegated powers.
The third requirement in the present context relates to
the need for detrimental reliance on the officers
statement or representation. In the Norfolk County
Council case, the court decided that there was no
detrimental reliance in so far as the developer was able
to cancel contracts for the purchase of machinery for
the factory extension without incurring any contractual
penalties.
 Restriction of estoppel
Megaw LJ in Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District
Council (1978) reemphasised that An estoppel cannot be raised
to prevent the exercise of a statutory discretion or to prevent or
excuse the performance of a statutory duty. He then indicated that
there are two kinds of exception:
For an estoppel to arise there has to be some evidence justifying
the person dealing with the planning officer.
If a planning authority waives a procedural requirement relating to
any applications made to it for the exercise of its statutory powers,
it might be estopped from relying on lack of formality.
 Estoppel and government policy
In Laker Airways Ltd v Department of Trade (1977)
,it was decided that an estoppel could not operate
against the government in view of the governments
previous conduct, albeit the conduct of a predecessor
government.The main emphasis of this area of the
decision is that an estoppel against a government
would effectively hinder its ability to act for the
public good.
Lawton LJ suggested that: Estoppel cannot be
allowed to hinder the formation of Government
policy.