A proposal for a single model of equitable estoppel

The research objectives were to build a unified equitable estoppel model that simplified the irregularities in the equitable estoppels as identified\nin England, while consolidating the essential principles to be applied in a unified model, with a view to potentially applying the model generally.\nOther jurisdictions which received notable focus were Ireland and Australia, chosen respectively because of the fertile Irish ground for further development, and because the Australian approach\ndiverges significantly from that in England. The\nmodel\nsought\nto\nsimplify\nand\nconsolidate\nequitable\nestoppel,\nand\nto\nmake\nit\ngenerally\napplicable.\nThe\nfocus\non\nEnglish\ncases\nthroughout\nthe\nthesis\nserved\nto\nhighlight\nsome\ndifficulties\nwithin\nequitable\nestoppel\nas\nit\nhas\ndeveloped\nin\nthat\njurisdiction\nin\nparticular\nand\nhence\nidentify\nthe\nmost\nconfusing\nfeatures\nof\nthe\ndoctrine.\nTwo\nsurveys\nwere\nconducted,\nwhich\nshowed\nfour\nkey\nissues:\nan\nimprecision\nof\nterminology,\na\nperception\nthat\nestoppel\nis\na\nfallback\nclaim,\na\npossible\nlack\nof\ndevelopment\nof\nthe\ndoctrine,\nand\nsome\nwelcoming\nattitudes\ntowards\na\npossible\nunified\ndoctrine\nand\nof\nfulfilling\nsuch\nmissing\ndevelopment.\nIn\nparticular,\nit\nwas\nquestioned\nwhether\nthese\nconcerns\nwere\nmore\nbroadly\nindicative\nof\nthe\nexistence\nof\ndoctrinal\ninconsistencies,\nand\nwhether\na\nunified\nmodel\ncould\nbe\nproposed\nwhich\nwould\naddress\nthose\ninconsistencies.\nA\nmodel\nwas\nincrementally\nbuilt\nby\naddressing\nsome\nwider\ndoctrinal\nconcerns\nin\nthe\nEnglish\nlaw.\nA\nconceptual\nsketch\nfound\nthat\nthere\nis\nspace\nfor\nwelcome\ndevelopment\nof\na\ndoctrine\nreddressing\ndetrimental\nreliance,\nand\nthat\nthis\nconcept\nis\nassociated\nwith\nequitable\nestoppel.\nOn\nthe\nbasis\nof\nthe\nviews\nof\nMcFarlane\nand\nLiew\nrespectively,\nit\nwas,\nfirst,\nfound\nthat\na\npossible\nunified\nequitable\nestoppel\nwould\nbe\nin\nthe\nnature\nof\na\nliability,\nand,\nit\nwas,\nsecondly,\nsuggested\nthat\nit\nwould\ngive\nrise\nto\na\nreflective\nremedy\nin\nthe\nshape\nof\na\nminimum\nequity.\nMeanings\nof\nunconscionability,\na\nconcept\nin\nequitable\nestoppel\nwhich\nhas\nled\nto\na\ngreat\ndeal\nof\ncommentary,\nwere\nseparated\nand\nanalysed.\nIt\nwas\nfound\nthat\nunconscionabilty\ncan\nmean,\nfirst,\nthe\njurisdiction\nin\nthe\nsense\nof\na\nbasis\nfor\nthe\nexistence\nof\nequitable\nestoppel\nin\nthe\nfirst\nplace;\nsecondly,\nthe\ncontext\nin\nwhich\nv\nthe\nreliance\ntakes\nplace;\nthirdly,\nthe\njustifiability\nof\nthe\nreliance;\nfourthly,\nwhether\nit\nis\nunconscionable\nto\nmove\nto\nan\ninconsistent\nposition;\nfifthly,\nwhether\nthe\ncourt\nought\nto\ngrant\na\nremedy;\nand,\nfinally,\nwhat\nparameters\naid\nthe\ncourt\nin\nshaping\nthe\nremedy.\nMeanwhile,\nseveral\ninconsistencies\nwere\nfound\nin\nthe\nprocesses\nof\nshaping\na\nliability\nand\na\nremedy\nin\nEnglish\nlaw.\nEnglish\nlaw\nand\ndoctrinal\ncommentary\ngenerally\nprefers\nnot\nto\nview\nsome\nestoppels\nas\ngiving\nrise\nto\na\ncause\nof\naction,\nand\nnot\nto\naccept\na\nunified\ndoctrine:\ncontrasting\nviews\nwere\nput\nforward\ndealing\nwith\nboth\nmatters.\nThe\nliability-finding\nprocess\nitself\nwas\nfound\nto\nhave\na\nsimpler\nbasis\nthan\nit\ncurrently\nhas,\nand\nthe\nremedy-finding\nprocess\ntending\ntowards\nthe\naward\nof\nan\nexpectation\nwas\ncompared\nwith\nsimilar\nprocesses\nin\nother\njurisdictions.\nAll\nwere\nviewed\nas\npotential\nbarriers\nto\nfurther\ndevelopment\nof\ndoctrine\nand\nthus\nas\nhaving\na\ndirect\nbearing\nupon\nthe\nfindings\nin\nthe\nsurveys,\nand\ntheir\nimplications.\nAll\nof\nthis\nwas\nargued\nto\nbe\nconceivably\nsoluble\nby\nbuilding\na\nunified\nmodel.\nHaving\naddressed\nthe\nmain\ndoctrinal\nquestions,\nthe\nfindings\nwere\nused\nto\nbegin\nbuilding\nsome\nanswers. A simplified and unified model was built which established the required steps as follows: (A) proof by the claimant of detriment, (A)(i) proof by the claimant of the relevance of that detriment by reference to a subject-matter, (B) disproof by the defendant of inducement, (B)(i) a defence of unreasonable reliance? which, if leading the court to find that a liability had been raised, completed (C)(i). Then, (C)(ii) allowed the court to find that conscience required the granting of a minimum-equity-based remedy, and (C)(iii) allowed the court to vary the remedy as found. The steps were built upon distinct findings throughout the thesis: for example, (C)(ii) built upon a combination of meaning five of unconscionability, and an analogy with legitimate expectation. The model was then tested using real-life cases. Its positive points and limitations were discussed in relation to its possible adoption in England, Australia, and Ireland. Issues relating to concurrent liability were discussed, and possible general weakenesses identified.