- Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd
English case infobox
name=Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd
court=King's Bench Division
date_decided= 18 July 1946
full_name= Central London Property Trust Ltd and High Trees House Ltd
citations= [1947] K.B. 130; [1956] 1 All E.R. 256 (Note); 62 T.L.R. 557; [1947] L.J.R. 77; 175 L.T. 333
judges=Denning J.
Cases_cited=Buttery v Pickard, (1946) 174 L.T. 144;
Fenner v Blake, [1900] 1 Q.B. 426 (QBD);
William Porter & Co Ltd, Re, [1937] 2 All E.R. 361 (Ch D)
Legislation_cited=None
prior_actions=None
subsequent_actions=None
Keywords=Intention; Promises; Estoppel"Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd" [Case citation| [1947] K.B. 130; [1956] 1 All E.R. 256 (Note); 62 T.L.R. 557; [1947] L.J.R. 77; 175 L.T. 333] – sometimes simply referred to as the "High Trees" case – is a High Court case decided by Justice Denning (later Lord Denning) that helped establish the doctrine of
promissory estoppel incontract law inEngland and Wales .Background
In 1937 High Trees House Ltd leased a block of flats for a rate £2500/year from Central London Property Trust Ltd. Due to the war and the resultant heavy bombing of London occupancy rates were drastically lower than normal. In January of 1940, to ameliorate the situation the parties made an agreement in writing to reduce rent by half. However, neither party stipulated the period for which this reduced rental was to apply. Over the next five years, High Trees paid the reduced rate while the flats began to fill, and by 1945, the flats were back at full occupancy. Central London sued for payment of the full rental costs from June 1945 onwards (i.e. last 2 quarters of 1945).
Ruling
Based on previous judgments in "
Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. " and "Birmingham and District Land Co. v. London & North Western Railway ", Justice Denning (as he then was) held that the full rent was payable from the time that the flats became fully occupied in mid-1945. However, he continued in anobiter statement that if Central London had tried to claim for the full rent from 1940 onwards, they would not have been able to. This was reasoned on the basis that if a party leads another party to believe that he will not enforce his strict legal rights, then the Courts will prevent him from doing so at a later stage.This obiter remark was not actually a binding precedent, yet it essentially created the doctrine of
promissory estoppel .This decision marked the creation of yet another exception to the rule in "
Foakes v. Beer ", which determines that where a party accepts part payment of a debt in satisfaction of the whole, they will not be barred from suing for the remainder. The case was distinguished on the basis that the agreement was in fact made "prior" to the debt being claimable, so it was not a part payment at all, but an agreement not to enforce legal rights.ee also
*
Contract
*Promissory estoppel
*Promise External links
* [http://www.justis.com/titles/iclr_s4720014.html Denning's judgment] from Justis.com
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
