Unifying estoppel doctrine: The argument for heresy

Articlebryan
Written By Julie Clarke

Michael Bryan
(2013) 7(3) Journal of Equity 171

Michael Bryan, ‘Unifying estoppel doctrine: The argument for heresy’ (2013) 7(3) Journal of Equity 209

Abstract

In Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher Mason CJ and Deane J proposed models for unifying the various heads of estoppel. The proposals have been ignored in most later decisions, and judicial and academic orthodoxy favours the retention of the separate heads. The article argues that there are convincing answers to the objections to unification, and goes on to assess the models proposed in Waltons Stores.

Julie Clarke
Previous

The undue influence of AI assistants, agents and companions
Next

Waltons v Maher: History, unconscientiousness and remedy — the ‘minimum equity’