Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
  • Hazel-Ann Hannaway

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

Prime Sight- under attack?

In the recently handed down judgment in Chen v Ng [2017] UKPC 27, the Board of the Privy Council cast doubt on a previous Board decision in Prime Sight Ltd v Lavarello [2013] UKPC 22 in regards to the issue of contractual estoppel.

In Prime Sight a deed provided that receipt and payment of a purchase price for an apartment was acknowledged, however both parties knew that the purchase price was never paid. The Board decided that there was nothing inherently contrary to public policy in parties agreeing to contract on the basis that certain facts are to be treated as established for the purpose of the particular transaction, despite the parties knowing otherwise. Accordingly, the official trustee of one of the parties to the deed was estopped from asserting that the purchase price had not been paid. The Board in Chen v Ng pointed to the extra judicial criticism Prime Sight has received for ignoring an old rule that recitals as to payment in a deed were not binding in equity (Handley, Reinventing Estoppel in the Privy Council (2014) 130 LQR 370, 371 and Handley, Estoppel by Conduct and Representation (2016), para 5-021). Meagher, Gummow and Lehand’s Equity (5th ed) (2015) at para 17-015, was also cited as submitting that Prime Sight was wrong on this point. The Board pointed to Spencer Bower’s Reliance-based estoppel (5th ed) (2017), paras 8.77-8.78, for an overview of the authorities and position generally. For more analysis from the Board on the above, the doctrine of consideration and the law of estoppel generally, see paragraphs 28 to 35 of the judgment here

Wind farm

Leave A Comment