Prosecution history estoppel in the UK?

The doctrine of 'prosecution history estoppel' (PH estoppel) as developed in the United States has strong intuitive appeal, especially when applied to counterbalance a related patent law principle, the doctrine of equivalents. The doctrines are receiving increasing attention in US patent decisions, to the point where one patent litigator recently compared them to "two cars that keep bumping fenders. They are frequently returned to the shop for repairs". Could PH estoppel find its way into UK patent law? This article briefly examines the doctrine, its evolution in the US and the problems associated with importing the doctrine into the UK. As the EU legislation stands, Article 69 and the Protocol to the European Patent Convention (EPC) pose serious obstacles to using the doctrine directly in claim construction. However there appears to be some scope to apply the doctrine as a limited form of defence in infringement actions.

Estoppel in the face of consumer protection in land transactions- judicial reasoning or judicial intuition

Nationally, there is much legislation regulating land sale transactions, particularly in relation to seller disclosure of information. The statutes require strict compliance by a seller failing which, in general, a buyer can terminate the contract. In a number of instances, when buyers have sought to exercise these rights, sellers have alleged that buyers have either expressly or by conduct waived their rights to rely upon these statutes. This article examines the nature of these rights in this context, whether they are capable of waiver and, if so, what words or conduct might be sufficient to amount to waiver. The analysis finds that the law is in a very unsatisfactory state, that the operation of those rules that can be identified as having relevance are unevenly applied and concludes that sellers have, in the main, been unsuccessful in defeating buyers' statutory rights as a result of an alleged waiver by those buyers.

Casual link and consensual arrangements in estoppel

Analyses the Court of Appeal decision in Powell v Benney on whether in a claim of proprietary estoppel the expectation of a couple that they would receive two properties owned, and promised to them, by a deceased friend was out of proportion to the detriment suffered by them in looking after the friend and improving his properties for their own use. Considers: (1) the approach to be taken to the requirement of a causal link between the assurance given and the conduct constituting the detriment relied on; and (2) consensual arrangements and estoppel equity.

Oral agreements: estoppel, constructive trusts and restitution

Analyses the House of Lords judgment in Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd in relation to claims by the prospective purchaser under an oral agreement for sale of a block of flats based on proprietary estoppel, a constructive trust and common law restitution brought against the owner of the property who sought to resile from the agreement after the purchaser had, at considerable expense, obtained planning permission to redevelop the property in reliance on assurances given by the owner that if permission was granted the sale would be honoured.

Estoppel and the interests of the prospective beneficiary

Reviews case law concerning proprietary and testamentary estoppel. Examines two cases in which an elderly person made certain comments and encouraged an understanding between themselves and the claimants, that on death properties would be left to them, but where the requisite legal formalities were not undertaken. Illustrates the contrasting courts' approach, once estoppel has been established, in finding the appropriate remedy to satisfy and considers the challenges faced by the courts in differentiating between constructive trust and proprietary estoppel. [From Legal Journals Index]

Doctrine of Estoppel

The object of every law is to render justice. But sometimes the strict implementation of low may result in injustice. Under such circumstances equity will step in to prevent the injustice. Estoppel is one such concept evolved by equity for rendering justice even deviating from strict legal principles. This study is an analysis of the essence of the principle of estoppel, its scope, circumstances and application. The related principles known as estoppel by record, estoppel by deed, estoppel by representation, promissory estoppel, estoppel against public authority is also considered. Estoppel, originated from the sense of justice, equity and good consciousness has since developed through various judicial pronouncements. Further section 115 of the Evidence Act has statutorily recognized and laid down the principles of estoppel. But Section 115 of the Evidence Act or any other statute does not cover the modern development of estoppel in the form of promissory estoppel.

Understanding unconscionability in proprietary estoppel

In a series of recent cases, courts have reasserted unconscionability as the basis of proprietary estoppel and in doing so have moved away from the structured form of discretion envisaged in the classic Taylors Fashions formula. In light of these developments, this paper traces the use of unconscionability in estoppel and examines the changing role attributed to the concept. In a parallel development, in exercising their remedial discretion once a claim to estoppel has been established, the courts have emphasised the foundation of estoppel in unconscionability to assert the need for proportionality between the detriment and remedy as ‘the most essential requirement’. Collectively, the cases demonstrate a lack of transparency or consistency, which raises concerns that the courts are descending into a form of individualised discretion. These developments are of particular concern as they come at a time when commentators are predicting a ‘boom’ in estoppel to follow the introduction of electronic conveyancing.

Proprietary estoppel: a functional analysis

This article argues in favour of a functional analysis of proprietary estoppel which focuses on the role of the doctrine in enabling claims to the informal acquisition of property rights in land. The article shows that adopting such an analysis both assists our understanding of two recent decisions of the English House of Lords and helps to resolve issues of taxonomy that arise in relation to the doctrine. A functional analysis both unites the sub-categories of proprietary estoppel into a single principle and distinguishes this principle from other types of estoppel claim. It is suggested, however, that the unification of common law and equitable estoppel remains both possible and desirable as long as ‘unification’ is understood broadly and is not confined to the recognition of a doctrine that is identical in its scope and operation in all cases. It is further shown that despite a lack of discussion of the concept in the House of Lords, unconscionability continues to play a key role in proprietary estoppel and therefore in the informal acquisition of property rights. Unconscionability may now benefit from a closer connection with the other elements of claims which should prevent abuse of the concept and allay concerns of ‘palm-tree justice’.