Lester & Anor v Woodgate & Anor

Laches and estoppel by acquiescence are distinct. Mere undue delay bars equitable relief but does not extinguish the legal right or prevent common-law damages. A predecessor’s delay is relevant to a successor’s claim for equitable relief, but does not automatically bind the successor.

Estoppel may arise where a right-holder’s conduct encourages reliance on non-enforcement, the other party suffers substantial detriment, and enforcement becomes unconscionable. The inquiry is flexible and fact-specific. The five probanda in Willmott v Barber are not universal, and mistaken belief is not invariably required. An estoppel can apply to interference with an easement, bind successors, and bar enforcement of the legal right itself. In that event, the interference is not actionable nuisance and damages cannot be recovered.

The claimants, owners of West View, sought to enforce a 1980 right of way over the defendants’ land at Copplestone. They claimed a mandatory injunction to reinstate an access ramp, an injunction against parking, and damages for nuisance and alleged development losses. The defendants relied on laches and equitable estoppel based on the predecessor owner’s failure to object to destruction of the ramp and creation of a parking space.

At Truro County Court, the Recorder barred equitable relief, awarded £10 common-law damages, rejected the additional building-cost claims, and ordered indemnity costs. The claimants appealed. The defendants cross-appealed the damages award. The central issues were whether the predecessor’s conduct could estop successors and whether damages remained available.

Lord Justice Patten delivered the judgment, with Lord Justices Jacob and Sedley agreeing. The claimants’ appeal was dismissed. The defendants’ cross-appeal was allowed and the action was dismissed.

1. Laches. Laches is a general equitable defence based on undue delay. Where the conduct amounts only to delay, it bars equitable relief such as an injunction but does not extinguish the legal right or prevent an award of common-law damages. A predecessor’s inactivity does not automatically descend with the title. It is one factor in deciding whether equitable relief should be granted to a successor, having regard to the circumstances affecting both parties. The distinction was supported by Lindsay Petroleum Company v Hurd (1874) LR 5 PC 221 and Nwakobi v Nzekwu [1964] 1 WLR 1019.
2. Estoppel. Equitable estoppel, including estoppel by acquiescence, is founded on a representation or promise about the enforcement of property or contractual rights which makes it unconscionable for the representor to resile. Proprietary estoppel may arise from words or conduct objectively conveying a reasonable assurance; subjective intention is unnecessary: Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18. The five probanda in Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch.D. 96 are not a universal formula. The court must adopt a flexible, fact-specific approach. Deliberate trespass or nuisance does not automatically exclude estoppel.
3. Application. The Recorder was entitled to find that Sherwell knew of the interference, objected to the dumping of rubble but accepted the resulting parking arrangement, and thereby encouraged reliance that the right of way would not be enforced. The defendants’ predecessor could rely on that position in dealing with the property. It became unconscionable for Sherwell and its successors to seek reinstatement. Estoppel by acquiescence could apply to nuisance interfering with an easement.
4. Damages and costs. Unlike laches, the estoppel barred enforcement of the legal right itself. The continued use of the parking space was therefore not an actionable nuisance, and no damages for the interference or consequential development costs could be awarded. The indemnity costs order was not disturbed because no clear error of principle or excess of discretion under rule 44.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 was shown.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2010] EWCA Civ 199, the claimants’ appeal was dismissed, the defendants’ cross-appeal was allowed, and the action was dismissed. The indemnity costs order was upheld.
• Truro County Court: The Recorder barred equitable relief by laches or estoppel, awarded £10 common-law damages, rejected the additional building-cost claims, and ordered indemnity costs.