Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Accepting that to be so, it seems to us that the nature and quality of Mr Jones' evidence, of necessity limited to the period in which he was in the meeting, and stated in terms of "impression" rather than direct recollection, together with the ambiguity in their context of the words `a line would be drawn under the matter', are a poor basis on which to arrive at any clear and unequivocal promise or representation so far as Tameside's subsequent rights were concerned.
The judge, on the basis of the parties' submissions, principally treated the estoppel pleaded as requiring a representation (clear and unequivocal) by Tameside and reliance by Barlows. Elsewhere, however, he dealt with it by applying a contractual test. In a passage which is by no means easy to follow he said:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.