Question:
In Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Doueihi & Ors [2014] NSWSC 1717 (4 December 2014) White J discusses the principles underlying equitable estoppel (the term ‘equitable estoppel’ includes promissory and proprietary estoppel and estoppel by encouragement and acquiescence) [127-249]. In particular, White J stressed the differences between the requirements of common law conventional estoppel (estoppel in pais) and equitable estoppel in both commercial and domestic situations.
Do the differences discussed by White J accord with those addressed in leading authorities such as Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387, Silovi Pty Ltd v Barbara (1988) 13 NSWLR 466 and Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394?
To what extent do these differences exemplify the origins of the role of equity’s auxiliary jurisdiction as ‘the conscience of the law?’
Other notes:
– please use relevant cases and scholarly journals as references
– referencing should comply with the requirements of the AGLC third edition