| dc.description.abstract | The research objectives were to build a unified equitable estoppel model that simplified the irregularities in the equitable estoppels as identified
in England, while consolidating the essential principles to be applied in a unified model, with a view to potentially applying the model generally.
Other 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
diverges significantly from that in England. The
model
sought
to
simplify
and
consolidate
equitable
estoppel,
and
to
make
it
generally
applicable.
The
focus
on
English
cases
throughout
the
thesis
served
to
highlight
some
difficulties
within
equitable
estoppel
as
it
has
developed
in
that
jurisdiction
in
particular
and
hence
identify
the
most
confusing
features
of
the
doctrine.
Two
surveys
were
conducted,
which
showed
four
key
issues:
an
imprecision
of
terminology,
a
perception
that
estoppel
is
a
fallback
claim,
a
possible
lack
of
development
of
the
doctrine,
and
some
welcoming
attitudes
towards
a
possible
unified
doctrine
and
of
fulfilling
such
missing
development.
In
particular,
it
was
questioned
whether
these
concerns
were
more
broadly
indicative
of
the
existence
of
doctrinal
inconsistencies,
and
whether
a
unified
model
could
be
proposed
which
would
address
those
inconsistencies.
A
model
was
incrementally
built
by
addressing
some
wider
doctrinal
concerns
in
the
English
law.
A
conceptual
sketch
found
that
there
is
space
for
welcome
development
of
a
doctrine
reddressing
detrimental
reliance,
and
that
this
concept
is
associated
with
equitable
estoppel.
On
the
basis
of
the
views
of
McFarlane
and
Liew
respectively,
it
was,
first,
found
that
a
possible
unified
equitable
estoppel
would
be
in
the
nature
of
a
liability,
and,
it
was,
secondly,
suggested
that
it
would
give
rise
to
a
reflective
remedy
in
the
shape
of
a
minimum
equity.
Meanings
of
unconscionability,
a
concept
in
equitable
estoppel
which
has
led
to
a
great
deal
of
commentary,
were
separated
and
analysed.
It
was
found
that
unconscionabilty
can
mean,
first,
the
jurisdiction
in
the
sense
of
a
basis
for
the
existence
of
equitable
estoppel
in
the
first
place;
secondly,
the
context
in
which
v
the
reliance
takes
place;
thirdly,
the
justifiability
of
the
reliance;
fourthly,
whether
it
is
unconscionable
to
move
to
an
inconsistent
position;
fifthly,
whether
the
court
ought
to
grant
a
remedy;
and,
finally,
what
parameters
aid
the
court
in
shaping
the
remedy.
Meanwhile,
several
inconsistencies
were
found
in
the
processes
of
shaping
a
liability
and
a
remedy
in
English
law.
English
law
and
doctrinal
commentary
generally
prefers
not
to
view
some
estoppels
as
giving
rise
to
a
cause
of
action,
and
not
to
accept
a
unified
doctrine:
contrasting
views
were
put
forward
dealing
with
both
matters.
The
liability-finding
process
itself
was
found
to
have
a
simpler
basis
than
it
currently
has,
and
the
remedy-finding
process
tending
towards
the
award
of
an
expectation
was
compared
with
similar
processes
in
other
jurisdictions.
All
were
viewed
as
potential
barriers
to
further
development
of
doctrine
and
thus
as
having
a
direct
bearing
upon
the
findings
in
the
surveys,
and
their
implications.
All
of
this
was
argued
to
be
conceivably
soluble
by
building
a
unified
model.
Having
addressed
the
main
doctrinal
questions,
the
findings
were
used
to
begin
building
some
answers. 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. | en |
