Taxation Law Case Study: Examining Promissory Estoppel in Australia

This case study delves into the principle of estoppel within the context of Australian taxation law, with particular emphasis on promissory estoppel. It elucidates the legal concept of estoppel, explaining how it prevents individuals from contradicting prior statements or actions, drawing from landmark cases like Jorden v Money and Legione v Hateley. The study further explores the evolution of promissory estoppel in Australia, highlighting the pivotal case of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher, where the High Court expanded the doctrine to include implied promises. The analysis underscores the requirements for claiming promissory estoppel, including the presence of a promisor, a promisee, and a detriment suffered by the promisee due to reliance on the promise. This document is available on Desklib, a platform offering a wide array of study tools and solved assignments for students.

Running head: TAXATION LAW
CASE STUDY ASSIGNMENT
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1TAXATION LAW
Law of Estoppel:
Estoppel is a judicial tool in legal systems of common law where a court has the
power to estop or prevent a person from making statements and later on denying his own
words, then such person is estopped from doing so. It generally stops someone from claiming
for something which he had previously denied. The law of estoppels is based on both equity
and common law. This was held in the case of Jorden v Money [1854] 10 ER 868. In this
principle, a person is refrained from contending any particular situation which will be
inequitable to do.
Estoppel is often regarded as a rule of evidence where a person is prevented from
leading any evidence of a particular fact that is already decided. The law of estoppel was
brought into the Australian law in the case of Legione v Hateley [1983] 57 ALJR 152 CLR
406 where the High Court of Australia decided the case on the basis of this principle.
Promissory estoppel can be regarded as a legal principle such that a promise is
enforceable by law, even though it is made with no formal consideration in a case where a
person known as the promisor makes a promise to another person called the promise who acts
on such promise for his detriment. This concept of estoppel is made to prevent the promisor
from alleging that any underlying promise must not be upheld legally or enforced.
It enables an aggrieved party to recover from the promise. There are few requirements
that are to be fulfilled by a person to claim for the promissory estoppel; the promisor, the
promisee and a detriment that is being suffered by the promise. Another condition is that the
promise must have depended on such promise and due to it, he has an actual detriment like an
economic loss that has occurred due to the failure of the promisor to perform the promise.
In Australia, the estoppels doctrine has evolved into an expansive concept as
compared to England and the United States. In the landmark case of Waltons Stores

2TAXATION LAW
(Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387, the High Court has expanded the concept of
estoppel to an implied promise depending on which the plaintiff has acted for his detriment.
In the instant case, Maher had owned some property with building on it at Nowra. He was
making negotiations with a departmental store named Walton stores for land lease. The store
wanted to demolish the building and create a new one in that place. prior to the contract was
made, depending on such representations, Maher demolished the building and began erecting
a new one. But the contract was never executed by Walton store as it did not sign the
contract.
The High Court decided that in order to avoid the detriment caused due to
unconscionable behaviour of Walton, he was stopped from denying the contract.

3TAXATION LAW
References:
Jorden v Money [1854] 10 ER 868
Legione v Hateley [1983] 57 ALJR 152 CLR 406
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387