← All Authorities
Australia Leading Case proprietary estoppelwaiver and estoppelunconscionability

Commonwealth v Verwayen

(1990) 170 CLR 394
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Year1990
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Australian law recognises a broad unified doctrine of estoppel requiring detriment and unconscionability, potentially extinguishing rather than merely suspending rights.

Key Principle

estoppel; detriment and unconscionability; wider scope of estoppel in Australian law

Area of Law

contract

Related Cases

Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 560

On termination of a building contract, a builder may recover reasonable value of work done in restitution, subject to the contract price as a ceiling where work was performed under a valid contract.

Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2016) 258 CLR 525

Bank late payment fees are not penalties where they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss or protect a legitimate interest of the stipulating party.

Simic v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation (2016) 260 CLR 85

High Court of Australia examined the principles governing rectification of written contracts for common intention and unilateral mistake in equity.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Commonwealth v Verwayen and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Commonwealth v Verwayen