Findings of fact and enforceability of estoppel

Allens Arthur Robinson

The Queensland Court of Appeal has found that the judge at first instance did not err in a finding of fact, despite the existence of evidence from which competing inferences could have been drawn. In doing so, the court applied the principles established by the High Court in Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22 and concluded that the finding was not ‘glaringly improbable’ or ‘contrary to compelling inferences’. As well, the court confirmed that an estoppel can only be maintained between the parties to it; that is, the person to whom a representation is made and who acted to his detriment, and the person who made the representation and is estopped. Detriments suffered by third parties cannot found an estoppel. [Case ref: Zen Foundation One Pty Ltd & Ors v Sippy Downs Group Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] QCA 232.]

Reproduced with permission of Allens Arthur Robinson and in accordance with their terms of use.

Related Posts

Recent Comments