Central London Property Limited V High Trees Case Summary

Name: Abdulrahman El-Gamati.
Student number: 15581427.
Problem Solving Q1:
I would advise Galway Bay Brewer that the main issue that arises in this case is ‘promissory estoppel’, where Due to an increase in demand in Sive and Moll’s company they asked GBB to increase the amount of kegs per week and promised an additional payment of £5000. This topic is clearly explained by the High Trees Principle. In the case Central London Property Limited v High Trees , the defendant had leased from the plaintiff a property in London where he sublets it to tenants. As a result of the onset of World War 2, many people left the city to escape the risk of bombing which left much of the property vacated. The plaintiff out of goodwill agreed to half the payment of rent during the war. After the war ended, the property returned to full occupancy and the rent to the original agreement. The plaintiff did not claim the deficit of rent which had not been paid between 1940-1945(during the time of the

This can be clearly seen in the case of Daly v Minister for the Marine. The plaintiff had received a letter from the defendant, explaining in error that he was eligible to claim under the fisheries scheme. The court ruled that although representation was made, because there was no evidence of reliance in this case, no estoppel could arise. The GBB relied on Sive and Molls word that they would pay an extra sum and took this into account when they decided to rent additional equipment from another micro-brewery company. This heavy reliance put the GBB at a disadvantage. I would inform the GBB that because these conditions are met, that they have a strong case for promissory estoppel. I would advise the GBB to first file a complaint against Sive and Moll and see if this resolves the issue as litigation costs are expensive. If this does not work I would recommend the GBB to file for promissory estoppel against Sive and