Australia: Be careful what you say – observations on estoppel claims in commercial lease negotiations

Last Updated: 4 September 2016
Article by Steven Askew
Services: Property & Projects
Industry Focus: Property

What you need to know

  • Parties must be mindful of the statements they make during contractual negotiations in order to avoid misleading the other party about their own rights in the negotiation.
  • In the absence of a binding agreement, the legal principle of estoppel can sometimes step in to create rights based on the action that one party takes in response to a representation made by the other, which induces that party to act to its detriment.
  • When courts consider estoppel claims in a commercial leasing context, there can sometimes be surprising results, as demonstrated by a recent decision by the New South Wales Court of Appeal.

It is well established that when parties are negotiating a contract, they must be mindful of the things they say and representations they make in the lead up to signing formal documents. It is common for disputes to arise when one party unfairly leads the other down the garden path to secure a desired outcome, only to go back on their word.

The legal principle governing this type of conduct is known as 'estoppel' and it arises frequently in the context of commercial lease negotiations. For example, where a landlord makes representations that it will be bound in a way that differs from its strict legal rights, it may face claims that it is 'estopped' from behaving differently if the tenant has reasonably relied on the landlord's representation to its own detriment.

We explore the way that two particular forms of estoppel have been recently examined by the courts in a commercial leasing context, with one case producing a surprising result.

Explaining estoppel

'Estoppel' is a legal term that is used in various senses. The two in focus here are:

Proprietary estoppel by encouragement:

Arises when an owner of land creates or encourages an expectation in another that they will receive a proprietary interest, which leads that other person to change their position such that they would be prejudiced if the owner were permitted to depart from the expectation that they created or encouraged.1

Promissory estoppel:

Arises when a holder of a right makes a voluntary promise that it will not enforce that right, which induces the other party to change its position.

The party making the representation can change its mind and revert to its strict legal rights if the other party has not suffered detriment by relying on the representation.2

Two major decisions have been delivered by different courts in recent months, shining a spotlight on these principles.

Estoppel by encouragement was recently considered by the NSW Court of Appeal in Doueihi v Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 105 (Doueihi Case).

The principle of promissory estoppel was recently the subject of a High Court decision in Crown Melbourne Limited v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 26 (Crown Melbourne Case).

Doueihi Case – a surprising result?

The dispute

A collection of individuals (many of whom were related) purchased a property at Seven Hills to accommodate the business interests of Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (CTA) and some other entities associated with that business. Mr Hogan (the director and major shareholder of CTA), was married to Ms Hogan, the daughter of one of the purchasers and a sister of another. He was the driving force behind the purchase.

During the planning stage for the construction of the building, Mr Hogan told the owners' representative (who was also one of the owners) that CTA would need a five-year lease, with a five-year option to renew in order to justify its expenditure of nearly $1 million installing plant and equipment after taking possession of the premises and paying rent from July 2010 onwards. The owner's representative, negotiating on the other co-owners' behalf, said that sounded fair. The other co-owners also knew that CTA was expecting a long-term occupation, based on the scale of its expenditure. Mr Hogan and the owners' representative had agreed the rent, the term, the premises to be leased and the option for renewal but had not agreed any other terms. Mr Hogan assumed that CTA did not need to make a formal agreement for lease, consistent with the co-owners' family's practice of not making formal tenancy agreements.

In July 2011, Mr and Ms Hogan separated. CTA then attempted to formalise the terms of the lease the parties had effectively been operating under, but in June 2012 CTA was offered a short-term lease at a 40% increase in rent. A few months later, the co-owners' solicitors gave CTA a notice to quit. CTA then commenced proceedings, claiming it had:

  • a binding agreement for lease on the terms which it had informally agreed with the co-owners and under which it had been operating in practice, or
  • the benefit of a conventional or equitable estoppel against the co-owners from denying the agreement for lease.

The outcome

The court held that CTA had the benefit of a proprietary estoppel by encouragement. It made a declaration that CTA was entitled to enforce an equity arising by estoppel and ordered the parties to execute a lease. The owners' appeal was dismissed by the NSW Court of Appeal.

Why is this decision significant?

This outcome is somewhat surprising against the background of a long line of cases in which parties to commercial leases have struggled to succeed in claims of estoppel without having had clear agreement on all terms. Those cases include Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins Selfserve Pty Ltd (1989) (in which the parties had not reached agreement on important terms such as rent) and DHJPM Pty Ltd v Blackthorn Resources Ltd (2011) (in which the parties had not agreed on any of the relevant commercial terms at all).

A case where there was clear evidence that the commercial terms had been finalised in negotiations was Waltons Stores (Interstate) Limited v Maher (1988). Here, documents setting out the agreed terms had been executed by the landlord and issued to the tenant's lawyers for execution by the tenant. The estoppel (in that case a promissory estoppel) arose when the tenant failed to inform the landlord that it had not signed the documents and was considering its position when it knew (or ought to have known) that the landlord was carrying out works on the understanding that there was a binding agreement and that the signing of documents was a mere formality.

Estoppel claims by parties who are experienced in commercial affairs, and who do not reach a binding agreement on all relevant terms, are viewed unfavourably by the courts because it is difficult to see how an experienced commercial operator can be encouraged to adopt an expectation that is inconsistent with the usual expectations of a binding agreement that surround commercial negotiations.

In the Doueihi Case, one possible explanation for the tenant's success is that it claimed a proprietary estoppel by encouragement in circumstances where the parties were closely related, even though the transaction was a commercial transaction. Estoppels by encouragement are common in family circumstances, and estoppels have been found in instances where the representation fell well below the requirement for certainty for a representation to be enforceable as a contractual variation. This argument was acknowledged in the Doueihi Case, but not seen as decisive.

In the end, the circumstances in which a representation is made will dictate whether or not it is reasonable to hold the expectation that is said to justify the estoppel. The crucial circumstance in Doueihi was the family convention that formal agreements not be made in relation to the business.

Crown Melbourne Case – confirming the obvious?

The dispute

In this case, parties with considerable experience in commercial operations were negotiating terms for two restaurant leases for five years each. The leases were conditional upon the tenants in each case carrying out substantial refurbishments to the premises at the outset of the leases. Amidst concerns that five-year terms would not allow the tenants to recoup the costs of the refurbishments, the tenants sought the landlord's agreement to grant terms of ten years each, or alternatively, options to renew for further terms of five years each. The landlord would not agree to the longer terms.

The tenants took the matter to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) where they claimed that during the course of negotiations, the landlord stated that new leases for five years each would be offered to the tenants at the end of the initial leases. The VCAT found that although there was no evidence of such a categorical promise, there was evidence that the tenants' representative was told that the tenants would be 'looked after at renewal time' if they: (i) executed the five year leases; (ii) returned the documents to the landlord, and (iii) proceeded with the refurbishments. The tenants did as they were asked, but no offer was made by the landlord at renewal time.

In the VCAT and again in in the High Court this year, the tenants claimed that the statement that they would be 'looked after at renewal time' amounted to a collateral contract which obliged the landlord to offer a renewal of the leases for five years on terms to be decided by the landlord. Alternatively, the tenants claimed that the landlord was estopped from refusing to offer a renewal of the leases on such terms.

The outcome

In the High Court, the tenants argued that their claim was in proprietary estoppel rather than promissory estoppel. The High Court rejected the tenants' claim on the basis that they were bound by the way they ran their claim in VCAT – that is, the claims should be assessed as claims in promissory estoppel.

In this regard, French CJ and Kiefel and Bell JJ rejected the tenants' claims primarily on the basis that in a case of promissory estoppel, the statement that the tenants would be 'looked after at renewal time' lacked the necessary clarity or precision to convey to a reasonable person that the tenants would be offered further leases at renewal time. Accordingly, the tenants could not argue on appeal that the less stringent test for certainty of representation that may be available in proprietary estoppel cases was available to them. In separate judgments, Keane J and Nettle J expressed similar views that the tenants were bound by the way they ran their cases in the VCAT.

Why is this decision significant?

The High Court's decision underscores the difficulty that a commercial party will experience in establishing a promissory estoppel of the kind recognised in the Waltons Stores case where the terms of the representation are vague and ambiguous. Keane J was explicit about this, saying that where a contractual right or liability is to be altered, the representation which is said to bring about that alteration should be as certain as what would be required to actually give effect to a contractual variation. His Honour contrasted the position of the landlord in Waltons Stores (where terms had been agreed and reduced to writing, but not signed) with the position of the tenants in the Crown Melbourne Case (where the terms of the further leases were unclear). By this measure, the tenants in Crown Melbourne fell well short of what was required to prove their claim.

Some of the judgments made comments in passing that the test for certainty of representation may be less stringent in cases of proprietary estoppel by encouragement than they are in promissory estoppel. Ultimately, the Court (other than Nettle J) would not be drawn on this question which remains to be determined in the High Court. Perhaps, Doueihi points the way.

Key takeaways

The following guidelines emerge from this discussion:

  1. During negotiations, parties need to be careful about the statements they make in order to avoid misleading the other party about their rights in the negotiation. In the absence of a binding agreement, estoppels sometime step in to create rights based on the conduct of one party in response to a representation made by the other which induces that party to act to its detriment.
  2. Promissory estoppel typically operates in a contractual/commercial setting. Given the stringent test for certainty for representation that applies in promissory estoppel, it is usually difficult to establish a promissory estoppel outside a pre-existing contractual arrangement unless the situation is exceptional, such as in Waltons Stores.
  3. Although it typically operates in a family setting, proprietary estoppel by encouragement sometimes operates in a commercial setting (as it did in Doueihi) and may provide a remedy where one would not be available if the estoppel claim was based on promissory estoppel.However, this remains to be seen. Although it came close in Crown Melbourne, the High Court has yet to decide this point.


1 Handley, K, Estoppel by Conduct and Election (Thomson Reuters, 2nd ed, 2016) at 1-2

2 See Handley.

This article is intended to provide commentary and general information. It should not be relied upon as legal advice. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular transactions or on matters of interest arising from this article. Authors listed may not be admitted in all states and territories

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.