Enforcing Broken Promises In Equity

Estoppel In Australia, Malaysia And Beyond

Abstract

The doctrine of estoppel has been one of the most discussed and debated doctrines for decades. One of the biggest issues for a long time was whether the doctrine could be used as a 'sword', or cause of action, or simply as a 'shield', a procedural device preventing a plaintiff from asserting certain facts. This debate first passed into history in Australia in 1988. But the resolution of the issue of whether estoppel could operate as a cause of action raised many new questions. As a cause of action where does estoppel belong in a taxanomy of obligations? What are the elements required in order to make out this estoppel? And what should the responses be to such a cause of action?