Has the doctrine of estoppel (and particularly that which relates to property) gone too far, particularly in the commercial sphere? This talk will look at the history of the doctrine, with a focus on proprietary estoppel and explore whether there are firm principles in place or whether it is a question of the Court thinking that something is just not fair. It will explore whether the Courts have tried to rein in the doctrine in respect of commercial cases including those where estoppel by convention or the Pallant v Morgan equity is relied upon and whether, by comparison, cases supposedly in the domestic context have gone too far.

Covenants between landlord and tenant or between freehold owners which prohibit one party from doing something without the consent of another will usually require the consenting party not to withhold consent arbitrarily or unreasonably. A proviso that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld is sometimes included expressly or as between landlord and tenant might be implied by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927. In relation to alienation covenants in leases, additional measures are contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 to protect tenants who are reliant on their landlord to act reasonably.

In this talk, Julie Gattegno and Adam Rosenthal KC will consider: (1) how effective the machinery is in relation to landlord and tenant covenants which depend on the consent of the landlord, (2) whether the approach which the Courts take to assessing the reasonableness of the exercise of the power to give or withhold consent is sufficiently principled and provides appropriate protection for the covenanting party and (3) whether principles which derive from the decision in Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17 have any role to play in the assessment of the reasonableness of a decision to withhold consent.

Following the controversial decision of the Supreme Court in Fearn v Trustees of the Tate Gallery, Gary Cowen KC and Louise Clark will consider the wider implications of the decision for the law of nuisance and its application in modern society. In particular, they will discuss whether Fearn represents a radical departure from the existing law or merely an application of existing principle and whether it clarifies the law or makes it more difficult to apply. Twenty-first century society is inevitably very different from John le Leche’s medieval tower and Gary and Louise will discuss the extent to which nuisance is still fit for purpose in modern life.

The past decade has seen significant judicial moves towards embracing ‘good faith’ as a general common law principle applicable to commercial contracts, welcomed by many but derided by others as intrusive, uncertain and uncommercial. Dr Janet O’Sullivan’s lecture will explore these developments through the prism of commercial property contracts, considering the implication of terms as to good faith in performance and the fuzzy concept of a ‘relational contract’, as well as obligations to negotiate in good faith and the attempted importation of good faith into the innocent party’s options on the other’s repudiatory breach.

Mr Justice Edwin Johnson will discuss endeavours obligations. What is required by endeavours obligations? What are best endeavours? What are all reasonable endeavours? What is reasonable? These can be difficult, and acutely fact sensitive questions to answer. This lecture aims to provide a guide to answering these and related questions in relation to property contracts, including the difficult question of the extent to which a party subject to an endeavours obligation is thereby required to act contrary to their own financial interest. The lecture will provide practical examples of the operation of endeavours obligations and review the case law on the meaning and content of endeavours obligations.