HT-2023-000415 - [2024] EWHC 1199 (TCC)

Estoppel

For completeness, I should address Dawnvale’s estoppel argument. Dr Sampson submitted that the Order comprised mutual promises that neither party would bring any further claims arising from the contract. He argued that Dawnvale acted in detrimental reliance upon the promise and Hylgar are now estopped from bringing further claims. I reject this submission. First of all, there were no “mutual promises”; paragraph 4 binds Hylgar, not Dawnvale. Secondly, the Order did not prohibit further claims “arising from the contract”, only those arising from or connected with the “proceedings”. But in any event, the Order was a binding agreement. There was no representation and no convention. There is no room for an estoppel.