Estoppel—common law and equitable

The Practice Notes in this subtopic are concerned with pleading an estoppel as a defence (and, on limited occasion, as a basis for a cause of action) but do not include pleading defences of cause of action estoppel or issue estoppel (sometimes known as collateral estoppel or judicial estoppel or estoppel by record) which are dealt with in: The doctrine of res judicata—overview.

The doctrine of estoppel

The basic concept of an estoppel is that where a person (A) has caused another (B) to act on the basis of a particular state of affairs, A is prevented from going back on the words or conduct which led B to act on that basis, if certain conditions are satisfied. In such cases A is estopped (ie 'stopped') from resiling from, or denying, the existence of that particular state of affairs.

The following dicta of Sir Anthony Mann in Jones v Lydon, citing in turn Lord Burrows in Tinkler v HMRC, and with particular reference to the representation estoppels, is of assistance:

‘66. […]  The essence of an estoppel is that a party is forced to accept a legal

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

Withholding DSAR documents from inspection during data protection proceedings by relying on a Data Protection Act 2018 exemption (Cole v Marlborough College)

Information Law analysis: This claim relates to the scope of production and the application of the exemptions to production of personal data in responding fully to a subject access request. The Claimant, Thomas Cole (Cole), who was a student at the Defendant school, Marlborough College (the College), submitted a data subject access request (DSAR) under Article 15 of the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the UK GDPR) after he was removed from the school following his involvement in a physical altercation with another student. In this half-day case management hearing, Mr Justice Nicklin assessed whether the College was entitled to withhold, in whole or part, documents containing Cole’s personal data, rather than providing the material for inspection ahead of a two-day trial on the data protection claim expected to start in mid-2025. The court held that the College was entitled to withhold some documents (containing Cole’s personal data) on the grounds of the exemption in paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, Part 3 to the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). In short, this exemption provides that a controller is not obliged to disclose information to a data subject where doing so involves disclosing information that relates to another individual who can be identified from that information, whether as the source of information or as the subject of such information. Written by Robyn Bond, associate at Ropes & Gray International LLP.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents