Contractual estoppel—the authorities
Produced in partnership with Nicholas Macklam of Radcliffe Chambers

The following Dispute Resolution practice note produced in partnership with Nicholas Macklam of Radcliffe Chambers provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Contractual estoppel—the authorities
  • Peekay v ANZ Banking Group (2006)
  • Chase v Springwell (2008)
  • Trident Turboprop v First Flight (2008)
  • Watersheds Ltd v DaCosta (2009)
  • Titan Steel v RBS (2010)
  • FoodCo v Henry Boot (2010)
  • Raiffeisen Zentralbank v RBS (2010)
  • Morgan v Pooley (2010)
  • San Marino v Barclays (2011)
  • More...

Contractual estoppel—the authorities

As noted in Practice Note: Contractual estoppel, contractual estoppel has been utilised with greatest effect in disputes in the financial sector. This Practice Note identifies some of the key cases from Peekay v ANZ Banking Group to the present day.

Peekay v ANZ Banking Group (2006)

The Court of Appeal's decision in Peekay v ANZ Banking Group is seen as the leading authority on the doctrine of contractual estoppel. The claimant had signed a 'Risk Disclosure Statement' in relation to investments it was making through the defendant bank, which included an acknowledgment that the signatory fully understood the nature of the transaction and the contractual relationship into which it was entering. The Court of Appeal concluded that, given this, the claimant could not subsequently assert that it was induced to enter into the contract by a misrepresentation as to the nature of the investments it was entering into.

See Practice Note: Contractual estoppel—What is contractual estoppel?

Chase v Springwell (2008)

This is generally seen as the second landmark decision on contractual estoppel, in which the principles set out in Peekay were followed, and developed. Similar to Peekay, this case concerned a claim that Chase had misrepresented the nature of investments to Springwell. Among the issues that the court had to consider was the effect of contractual estoppel on the claim for misrepresentation. Gloster J (as she

Popular documents