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.
LORD JUSTICE PETER GIBSON LORD JUSTICE BUXTON LORD JUSTICE JACOB ____________________
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR R JONES QC and MR D MITCHELL (instructed by Messrs Patwa Solicitors, Bearwood B67 5RA) appeared on behalf of the Appellant MISS N LIEVEN (instructed by Treasury Solicitor, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the First and Second Respondent MR R McCRACKEN QC and MR A CRAIG (instructed by Durham County Council, County Hall, Durham DH1 5UL) appeared on behalf of the Third Respondent ____________________
who has a relevant interest in the land. It will apparent that EE Ltd can only qualify as a person aggrieved under the third category.
argument advanced in favour of this contention, I am quite satisfied that it is wholly unsustainable. The authorities relied on have their whole being in, and take their meaning from, a situation of conflict or negotiation between the two parties between whom the estoppel is said to arise. No one has ever suggested that such an estoppel could arise between the owner of a company and the company itself. That is simply not the legal structure for which this doctrine was conceived by the very distinguished judges to whom I have made reference.
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.