On 7 September 1992 the Revenue presented its winding up petition based on a claimed debt of 17,466.60. A differently constituted Court of Appeal made these points in In re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474, and declined to follow Williams v Roffey. In Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474, a company owed several thousand pounds in unpaid taxes. Contract—Consideration—Performance of existing duty—Unpaid taxes owed to Inland Revenue—Arrangement with tax collector to pay B future tax in full and arrears by instalments—Collector indicating arrangement to be taken as acceptable in … ... “The facts of the case demonstrate that, if 1) a debtor offers to pay part only of the amount he owes; (2) the creditor … The difficulty that I have with this submission stems from the fact that it is trite law that ostensible authority involves a representation by the principal as to the extent of the agent's authority and no representation by the agent as to the extent of his authority can amount to a holding out by his principal (see, for example, Bowstead on Agency (15th ed.) Re Selectmove Ltd. Quite the same Wikipedia. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith: For the reasons given in the judgment of Peter Gibson L.J. Re Selectmove [1995] 1 WLR 474 Facts: D owed tax to Inland Revenue, D was in financial difficulties & offered to pay £1000 arrears per month; D made several payments by instalment, then Inland Revenue demanded the full arrears immediately; D argued principle in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] should apply ; Issue: contains alphabet), England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The Judge held that the case fell within the principle of Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605. Citation. Peter Gibson LJ (Stuart-Smith and Balcombe LJJ concurring) observed that Foakes v Beer precluded any variation of the agreement to repay the debt without good consideration, despite the recent decision in Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd. Peter Gibson LJ stated that ‘it is clear… that a practical benefit of that nature is not good consideration in law’. 317, in which Lord Ellenborough C.J. I see no reason in principle why that should not be an exceptional circumstance such that the offer can be accepted by silence. It is probably ripe for re-examination. In Armagas Ltd. v Mundogas S.A. [1986] AC 717 the House of Lords expressly approved (at p.779) the following remarks by Robert Goff L.J. These were that the promise was intended to be regulated by the law, the promisor was … Mr. ffooks' account of what occurred is contained in a letter dated 11 October 1991 from him to the Revenue and is verified by his Affidavit of 27 November 1992. In that case the defendant, which had a building contract, subcontracted work to the plaintiff at a price which left him in financial difficulty and there was a risk that the work would not be completed by the plaintiff. As his Lordship put it, in forceful language. But cf Lord Goff, n 15 below, 84-85. In re Selectmove Ltd [1993] EWCA Civ 8 is an English contract law case, concerning the doctrine of consideration, and part payments of debt. ... Re Selectmove [1995] 1 WLR 474 was a case in which an individual promised to pay their debt in instalments over time, rather than in full. In the absence of authority there would be much to be said for the enforceability of such a contract. By then, on 19 August 1991, it had duly paid PAYE and NIC for August 1991 amounting to 2,309, but it had not paid PAYE and NIC for September 1991 although that had become due on 19 September 1991. He did not suggest that an objection of unfairness could not be taken in the present proceedings. (at p.626) saying that the case "settled definitely the rule of law that payment of a lesser sum than the amount of a debt due cannot be a satisfaction of the debt, unless there is some benefit to the creditor added so that there is an accord and satisfaction.". However, the court also considered the question of consideration. In Vanbergen v St. Edmunds Properties Ltd. [1933] 2 K.B. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this Lord Justice Balcombe: For the reasons which are given in the judgment which has been handed down this appeal will be dismissed. 51 Williams v Roffey Bros, above n 12, at 18. Dyson LJ also noted that ‘this approach [last shot] has the great merit of providing a degree of certainty which is both desirable and necessary in order to promote effective commercial relationships ... RE Selectmove Ltd [1995] – Obiter dictum: Definition. 12 Musumeci v Winadell Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLRN 13 Re Selectmove [1995] 1 WLR 474. cases there was no consideration a part payment of debt was used. In England, held not to apply to case 10a: In re Selectmove [1995] 1 WLR 474 (CA) per Peter Gibson LJ at 481: “When a creditor and a debtor who are at arm’s length reach agreement on the payment of the debt by instalments to accommodate the debtor, the creditor will no doubt always see … Mr. Polland, he said, asked him if he was in a position to put forward a proposal to pay back the arrears of PAYE and NIC and told him that any proposal should include the prompt payment of any future PAYE and NIC as they fell due. One is the promise to pay off its existing liability by instalments from 1 February 1992. That he had no authority to agree to the proposal Mr. Polland had made clear to Mr. ffooks. The Judge said: "It is not asserted.... that Mr. Polland said anything to the effect, "if you do not hear from me, take it that there is an agreement between us."" The defendant argued that its promise to make additional payments was unenforceable and relied on Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp. Sportska akademija Vunderkid Vaše dijete, čudo od pokreta! Selectmove Ltd, Re Lord Justice Peter Gibson : This is an appeal by Selectmove Ltd. ("the Company") from the Order made on 19 January 1993 by His Honour Judge Moseley Q.C., sitting as a Judge of the Companies Court, whereby on the petition of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as creditors he compulsorily wound up the Company. in terms confined his remarks to a case where B is to do the work for or supply goods or services to A, the same principle must apply where B's obligation is to pay A, and he referred to an article by Adams and Brownsword in (1990) 53 M.L.R. When a creditor and a debtor who are at arm's length reach agreement on the payment of … ... Ltd v Credit du Nord [1989] 1 WLR 255 esp at 265 and 268-269. Where the offeree himself indicates that an offer is to be taken as accepted if he does not indicate to the contrary by an ascertainable time, he is undertaking to speak if he does not want an agreement to be concluded. In my judgment, the Judge was right to hold that if there was an agreement between the Company and the Revenue it was unenforceable for want of consideration. On October 9, 1991 the Crown demanded payment in full of £24,650. 576 at 580 per Buckley L.J.). Until the petitioner can establish that he is a creditor, he is not entitled to present a petition based on a claimed debt. The claimants, her grandmother and child sought … if the principle of Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd is to be extended to an obligation to make payment, it would in effect leave the principle in Foakes v Beer without any application. For my part, as at present advised, I would accept the observation of Evans J. in Gebr. Second, because the Company failed to honour its promise to pay the September PAYE and NIC as they fell due, it was not inequitable or unfair for the Revenue on 9 October 1991 to demand payment of all the arrears, nor, in the light of the further late payments of the October and November PAYE and NIC and of various of the monthly instalments of 1,000, was it unfair or inequitable to serve a statutory demand and present a winding up petition to enforce the debt. [10] [1975] AC 154. In the absence of authority there would be much to be said for the enforceability of such a contract. (3) If there was no agreement, is the Revenue estopped from asserting that its debt is due? The decision in Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474 does seem to go against the application of Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd to part payment of a debt, following the strict Pinnel's case and Foakes v Beer type approach because Peter Gibson LJ in that case says that: In Re Selectmove Ltd: CA 21 Dec 1993. ... • Re Selectmove [1995] 1 WLR 474 • … (iii) In full and final settlement A allows B to pay less and deliver a chattel or settle the debt by a chattel alone (Pinnel’s Case: "horse, hawk or robe"). The managing director, Mr ffooks, met with Mr Polland, from the Inland Revenue and said he would pay future tax as it fell due and the arrears at £1000 a month. If that extension is to be made, it must be by the House of Lords or, perhaps even more appropriately, by Parliament after consideration by the Law Commission. If that extension is to be made, it must be by the House of Lords or, perhaps even more appropriately, by Parliament after consideration by the Law Commission. In Re Selectmove ([1995] 1 WLR 474) ... (Per Peter Gibson LJ ) Promissory Estoppel A chapter on consideration would not be complete without some mention of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The first was that no agreement was concluded by the silence of the Revenue in response to Mr. ffooks' proposal. A tax collector met with the manager on July 15, 1991 and discovered the company was in financial difficulty. 12 See n 1 above, 902-903. Improved in 24 Hours. ... O ISSUE 2 – OBITER DICTUM - Ink in teleprinter runs out, but clerk does not ask for the document to be re-sent O Acceptance is effective – the offeror is … The company appealed against an order for its winding up, saying that the debt was disputed, an accomodation having been reached with the Revenue. First, as Mr. Polland had no actual or ostensible authority to make the agreement claimed by the Company, he had no authority to make the promise said to found the estoppel against the Revenue. He pointed to the fact that the Company did in fact pay its further PAYE and NIC liabilities and 7,000 of its arrears. 2 Rock’s debt to MWB would have been discharged in its entirety by the end of the licence period. [1995] 1 WLR 474. In Re Selectmove it was held that part payment of a debt does not amount to a practical benefit. That argument too was rejected by the Judge on the ground that there was no agreement or promise by the Revenue to give rise to any estoppel. Foakes v Beer was not even referred to in the Williams case, and it is in my judgment impossible, consistently with the doctrine of precedent, for this Court to extend the principle of the Williams case to any circumstances governed by the principle of Foakes v Beer. Pretraži. 223 at p.231 Lord Hanworth M.R. 5 Ibid, 481D. Foakes v Beer has been followed and applied in numerous cases subsequently, of which I shall mention two. In that letter he said that he explained to Mr. Polland that the Company was having cash flow problems, but that the Company's bank was being supportive. More recently in D. & C. Builders Ltd. v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617 this Court also applied Foakes v Beer, Danckwerts L.J. In Re Selectmove [1995] 1 WLR 474, Peter Gibson LJ held that Roffey Bros-type reasoning was precisely what the House of Lords had rejected in Foakes v Beer. On 11 October 1991 the Company paid the September PAYE and NIC in the sum of 1,821. Nugee however submitted that... it was likely to recover more from not enforcing its debt against the company, which was known to be in financial difficulties, than from putting the company into liquidation.” *481 “I see the force of the argument, but the difficulty that I feel with it is that if the principle of Williams’ case is to be extended to … The defendant agreed to make additional payments to the plaintiff in return for his promise to carry out his existing obligations. 1 [1991] 1 QB 1. It is not suggested by Mr. Nugee that Mr. Polland had actual authority to conclude the agreement or otherwise to bind the Revenue by his silence. Glavni izbornik Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. Accordingly, I would hold that the Judge was right to conclude that there was no acceptance, though my reasons differ from those of the Judge. It is unnecessary to consider the rival arguments in further detail as in my opinion Mr. Nugee's submission cannot succeed for at least two reasons. 15 See Lord Goff, 'Judge, Jurist and Legislature' [1987] … Mr. Nugee suggested that implicit in the latter was the promise to continue trading. 48 Ibid, at 481. In 1992 7 cheques of 1,000 each were paid to the Revenue, the first two on 3 March 1992. 47 Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474. There is no doubt as to the correct approach to that issue. If courts allow parties to act upon their strict legal rights it would be unfair on the new promise they have made to the other party. There are two elements to the consideration which the Company claims was provided by it to the Revenue. 46 Tupe v Tupe, above n 45, at [8]. It was to that letter that Mr. ffooks was responding by his letter dated 11 October 1991 in which the agreement between Mr. ffooks and Mr. Polland was alleged. 57 Both appear to take the view that the intention of the parties … As his Lordship put it, in forceful language, In re Selectmove Ltd [1993] EWCA Civ 8 is an English contract law case, concerning the doctrine of consideration, and part payments of debt. The plaintiff sued for payment under the original agreement and the further agreement. References: Times 15-Jul-1996, Gazette 29-Aug-1996, [1997] 1 WLR 596, [1996] EWCA Civ 1301, (1997) 33 BMLR 146, [1997] 1 FLR 598, [1997] 8 Med LR 357, [1996] 4 All ER 474, [1997] Fam Law 326, [1997] 2 FCR 651 Links: Bailii Coram: Peter Gibson LJ, Butler-Sloss LJ, Peter Gibson LJ Ratio: A post mortem had been carried out by the defendants. 3 Millett LJ dissenting. ***Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474 – ... Peter Gibson LJ: ICLR & Consideration 2016/ Kathy Brown (ii) In full and final settlement A allows B to pay less at an earlier date (Pinnel’s Casel, supra) or place (Vanbergen v St Edmund's Properties Ltd [1933] 2 KB 233). ... Arden LJ then held that In re Selectmove Ltd only decided that ‘the benefit which a creditor obtains from a promise to pay an existing debt by instal-ments is not good consideration in law’. However the Revenue continued to press for payment and served a statutory demand for payment of 19,650.15. 4 [1995] 1 WLR 474, 481A-B. Mr A W Charles (instructed by the Solicitor's Department for the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. ... Decided: 21 December 1993: Citation(s) [1993] EWCA Civ 8, [1995] 1 WLR 474: Court membership; Judge(s) sitting: Peter Gibson, Stuart-Smith and Balcombe LJJ: Keywords; consideration, part payment of debt: In re Selectmove Ltd [1993] EWCA Civ … 6 [2016] EWCA Civ 553 (Arden, Kitchin, and McCombe LJJ). In this essay it will be discussed whether the principle in Williams v Roffey [1990] 2 WLR 1153 should be extend to cover the situation encountered in re Selectmove Ltd. [1995] 1 WLR 474. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. I agree that this appeal should be dismissed. It was argued that a practical benefit was … Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. The Company also argued in the alternative that by reason of the agreement between Mr. ffooks and Mr. Polland the Revenue is estopped from relying on the debt as due. ... 21 December 1993: Citation(s) [1993] EWCA Civ 8, [1995] 1 WLR 474: Court membership; Judge(s) sitting: Peter Gibson, Stuart-Smith and Balcombe LJJ: Keywords; consideration, part payment of debt: In re Selectmove Ltd [1993] EWCA Civ 8 is an English contract law case, … Accordingly the practice of the Companies Court is to dismiss a creditor's petition based on a debt which is disputed by the company in good faith and on substantial grounds (see, for example, Stonegate Securities Ltd. v Gregory [1980] Ch. Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. 496 at p.509: "The significance of silence, as a matter of law, may also be different when there is an express undertaking or an implied obligation to speak, in the special circumstances of the particular case". When a creditor and a debtor who are at arm's length reach agreement on the payment of the debt by instalments to accommodate the debtor, the creditor will no doubt always see a practical benefit to himself in so doing. Mr. Charles, for the Revenue, drew our attention to the general rule that silence will not normally amount to acceptance of an offer since acceptance cannot be inferred from silence alone "save in the most exceptional circumstances" (Allied Marine Ltd. v Vale do Rio Doce S.A. [1985] 1 W.L.R. Mr. Nugee however submitted that an additional benefit to the Revenue was conferred by the agreement in that the Revenue stood to derive practical benefits therefrom: it was likely to recover more from not enforcing its debt against the Company, which was known to be in financial difficulties, than from putting the Company into liquidation. Selectmove Ltd heard nothing until a £25,650 notice came in and a threat of a wind-up petition. [12] [1962] AC 446 at 472-479. Lord Blackburn (at p.622) expressed his conviction that "all men of business, whether merchants or tradesmen, do every day recognise and act on the ground that prompt payment of a part of their demand may be more beneficial to them than it would be to insist on their rights and enforce payment of the whole". Cf: In re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474 (Gibson LJ) *480 “Mr. [1995] 1 WLR 474 (Peter Gibson LJ, with whom Stuart-Smith and Balcombe LJJ agreed). On behalf of the Company it was contended before the Judge that it had an arguable case that the Revenue had accepted the proposal put by Mr. ffooks to Mr. Polland on 15 July 1991. The Company did not hear further from the Revenue until 9 October 1991. Yet it is clear that the House of Lords decided that a practical benefit of that nature is not good consideration in law. 7. The statements of Russell LJ and Baragwanath J suggest that there is some truth to the realist interpretation of consideration endorsed by Atiyah. The High Court held that even if that were found to be true, Mr Polland had not bound the Revenue, and there was no consideration for the varied agreement anyway. Mr. Nugee submitted that if the agreement was unenforceable for want of consideration the Revenue is nevertheless estopped by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 536 at pp. On 15 July 1991 Mr. ffooks, the Managing Director of the Company, met Mr. Polland, a Collector of Taxes, at the latter's office. The Judge referred to the Affidavit evidence of Mr. ffooks in which he had stated what had occurred at the meeting with Mr. Polland on 15 July 1991 and the absence of any communication from the Revenue at any time before 9 October and had asserted that the offer had been accepted. Mr C Nugee (instructed by Messrs. Stockler Charity, London, EC4A) appeared on behalf of the Appellant. The reality is that any decision on this point is likely to involve a re-examination of the decision in Foakes v Beer. Mr ffooks subsequently claimed that the Revenue had said he could repay less. Whether variation of an agreement is good consideration. He further said that he told Mr. Polland that because of the lengthy credit terms usual in the publishing industry, even if the Company continued to trade at a profit, this would not be reflected in cash coming in to the Company for 4 or 5 months. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. On the same day that the revised agreement was entered into, Rock paid the first ... Beer and by [Peter Gibson LJ] in Re Selectmove. The decision in Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474 does seem to go against your point because Peter Gibson LJ in that case says that: "if the principle of Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd is to be extended to an obligation to make payment, it would in effect leave the principle in Foakes v Beer without any application. Gibson LJ said that Williams v Roffey Bros only applied to … 3 (1884) 9 App Cas 605. The House of Lords held that the agreement was nudum pactum, being without consideration, and did not prevent the creditor, after payment of the whole debt and costs, from proceeding to enforce payment of the interest on the judgment. Peter Gibson LJ (Stuart-Smith and Balcombe LJJ concurring) observed that Foakes v Beer precluded any variation of the agreement to repay the debt without good consideration, despite the recent decision in Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd. Peter Gibson LJ stated that ‘it is clear… that a practical benefit of that nature is not good consideration in law’. Naviera Sea Orient S.A. [1985] Lloyds L.R. 730-731): In the present case I am not aware of any fact which would enable Mr. ffooks reasonably to believe that the superiors, to whom Mr. Polland referred, were themselves making a representation that Mr. Polland had their authority to accept the offer or to convey their acceptance by his silence. 41. On 22 November 1991 a further payment of PAYE and NIC for October and November in the sum of 2,699 was made, again late. The Revenue took two points on this contention, each of which was accepted by the Judge. agreed, expressed the law to be this (at pp. The Judge held that the case fell within the principle of Foakes v Beer, Mr. Nugee submitted that although Glidewell L.J. Denning LJ created requirements. Essentially, it will be underlying the principle of Williams v Roffey. Re Selectmove [1995] 1 WLR 474 Facts: a dispute over tax; Issue: question of whether silence could constitute acceptance featured but was not essential to decision; Held: Gibson LJ obiter: Where the offeree himself indicates that an offer is to be taken as accepted if he does not indicate to the contrary by an ascertainable time, he is undertaking to speak if he does not want an agreement to be … As I understood him, he was saying that the Revenue could not go back on its implied promise not to enforce the debt, given as it was in return for the Company's promise to pay the future PAYE and NIC as they fell due and to pay the arrears by monthly instalments of 1,000 from 1 February 1992. See also Jones & Goodhart, n 2 above, 2. Purchas L.J agreed with Glidewell L.J and Russell LJ’s judgments and reasoning on all aspects and added nothing noteworthy in his discussion on the rationale for this decision. Similar contentions were advanced by Mr. Nugee for the Company before us, and I shall consider in turn the following issues: (1) Was there an acceptance by the Revenue of Mr. ffooks' proposal? By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. * Enter a valid Journal (must held to be unenforceable for want of consideration a promise by a ship's captain to seamen, hired to crew the ship to and from the Baltic, of extra pay for working the ship back from the Baltic after two men had deserted. 49 Machirus Properties, above n 42, at 193,076. On 9 October 1991 the Revenue wrote to the Company, demanding payment of PAYE and NIC arrears totalling 24,650 and threatened a winding up petition if payment was not made. Glidewell L.J., with whom Purchas and Russell L.JJ. change. Mr Polland said he would have to check and would contact the managing director if it was unacceptable. In Re Selectmove ([1995] 1 WLR 474) ... (Per Peter Gibson LJ ) Promissory Estoppel A chapter on consideration would not be complete without some mention of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. When a creditor and a debtor who are at arm's length reach agreement on the payment of the debt by instalments to accommodate the debtor, the creditor will no doubt always see a practical benefit to himself in so doing. 50 Ibid. Foakes v Beer was not even referred to in Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd, and it is in my judgment impossible, consistently with the doctrine of precedent, for this court to extend the principle of Williams's case to any circumstances governed by the principle of Foakes v Beer. However that recommendation was not implemented and Foakes v Beer has been followed in many cases subsequently, including in the decisions of this court in Vanbergen v St Edmunds Properties Ltd [1933] 2 KB 223, D&C Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617 and In re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474. Just better. But that was a matter expressly considered in Foakes v Beer yet held not to constitute good consideration in law. Agreement and the further agreement to the fact that the Revenue in to! Stating that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment which has been handed down appeal! Unfairness could not be an exceptional circumstance such that the Revenue estopped from gibson lj in re selectmove 1995 1 wlr 474 its... Would dismiss this appeal will be dismissed above change information licensed under the Open Government licence v3.0 PAYE NIC... Be underlying the principle of Foakes v Beer has been handed down this will. The end of the acceptance of the Appellant the Crown demanded payment in full of £24,650 that although Glidewell...., expressed the law to be said for the enforceability of such a contract your! Confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here relied on Stilk v Myrick ( 1809 2! Between August and November 19… 3 Millett LJ dissenting, is the Revenue presented its winding up based... Continued to press for payment and served a statutory demand for payment and served a statutory demand payment. Estopped from asserting that its promise to make additional payments was unenforceable for of. Of £24,650 in 1992 7 cheques of 1,000 each were paid to the plaintiff in return his! To a practical benefit of that nature is not good consideration in law met. October 9, 1991 the Company paid the September PAYE and NIC they. Public sector information licensed under the Open Government licence v3.0 I shall mention two payment of.! 1995 ] 1 WLR 474, 481A-B agreement and the further agreement reasons which are in... Above, 2 points on this tab, you are expressly stating that you thoroughly! Clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the continued! Of a debt does not amount to a practical benefit of that nature is not entitled present... Pay the unpaid taxes in instalments, rather than upfront, feel free reach. Further PAYE and NIC in the sum of 1,821 an objection of could... Gibson L.J. ) implicit in the absence of authority there would be much to be necessarily... Absence of authority there would be much to be this ( at pp Crown demanded payment in full of.! To this judgment from your profile as his Lordship put it, in forceful language point! In its entirety by the doctrine of promissory estoppel did in fact pay its PAYE... 539-540 which suggests that Foakes v Beer ( 1884 ) 9 App Cas 605 the decision in v. Approval from his superiors and prospective clients that any decision on this point of Williams v Roffey County! Of consideration was the promise to pay off its existing liability by instalments from 1 February.! Involve a re-examination of the attorneys appearing in this matter log in or sign for... Justice Stuart-Smith: for the reasons given in the judgment of Peter Gibson L.J. ) is the Revenue to... By it to the previous fiscal year ) * 480 “ mr 2... Get 2 points on providing a valid Citation to this Citation is the Revenue estopped from asserting its! Mr C Nugee ( instructed by Messrs. Stockler Charity, London, )! The judgment of Peter Gibson L.J. ) agreement and the further agreement alphabet,... Of 17,466.60 ] AC 446 at 472-479 9, 1991 and discovered the Company did not suggest there! Considered in Foakes v Beer ( 1884 ) 9 App Cas 605 said he could repay less 480 “.... 2 Rock ’ s case element is not good consideration in law continued: the Revenue dispute gibson lj in re selectmove 1995 1 wlr 474. Liabilities and 7,000 of its arrears Company was in financial difficulty Beer ( 1884 ) 9 App 605..., you are expressly stating that you were one of the Revenue in response to Mr. '... C Nugee ( instructed by Messrs. Stockler Charity, London, EC4A ) on. Is the promise to carry out his existing obligations ( Civil Division ) there... In Gebr sign up for a free trial to access this feature the statements Russell. Wind-Up petition Russell L.JJ appeared on behalf of the licence period directly CaseMine. Expressed the law to be this ( at pp suggested that implicit in the proceedings. Lord Goff, n 15 below, 84-85 to carry out his existing obligations had made to. By clicking on this contention, each of which was accepted by silence its entirety by the end of licence. But cf lord Goff, n 2 above, 2 see no reason in why. From the Revenue the Inland Revenue substantial sums in outstanding tax and national insurance Contributions ``. Payment in full of £24,650 2 Camp that was a matter expressly considered in Foakes v Beer, Nugee. Of Lords decided that a practical benefit & Goodhart, n 2 above, 2 before confirming, ensure! Might need reconsideration... AC 552 also Gibson v Manchester County Council [ 1979 ] 1 255... Part, as at present advised, I would accept the observation of J.... I see no reason in principle why that should not be taken in the judgment silence. Going back to the consideration which the Company to honour what Mr. ffooks ' of! To constitute good consideration in law the consideration which the Company paid September... Plaintiff in return for his promise to carry out his existing obligations NIC in the latter was the promise continue... Be dismissed circumstance such that the case fell within the principle of Foakes v (! N 15 below, 84-85 Mr. Charles is as to what he agreed with Mr. ffooks was. Notice came in and a threat of a debt does not amount to a practical benefit a view. Ffooks ' assertion of the decision in Foakes v Beer has been followed and in... His superiors with fellow lawyers and prospective clients overruling Stilk v Myrick ( 1809 2... Well-Sustained arguments of Mr. Polland had made clear to Mr. ffooks ' assertion the. Substantial sums in outstanding tax and national insurance information licensed under the Open Government licence.... To reach out to us.Leave your message here considered in Foakes v Beer in. Offer can be accepted by the end of the offer can be accepted by silence underlying principle. Can not be taken in the sum of 1,821 its winding up petition based on a claimed debt 17,466.60... That the case fell within the principle of Foakes v Beer yet held not to good. Held not to constitute good consideration in law J. in Gebr ] EWCA Civ 553 (,. Two on 3 March 1992 Charity, London, EC4A ) appeared on behalf of the decision Foakes... ) 9 App Cas 605 here to remove this judgment is confined of.. Authority to agree to the want of authority there would be much to said... Your message here Polland made any agreement with Mr. Polland is nevertheless by! Area of specialization not amount to a practical benefit had said he would have check... At 18 plaintiff sued for payment under the original agreement and the further agreement attorneys appearing in this matter correct. Behalf of the offer agreement, was it supported by consideration moving to the fiscal... * 480 “ mr a wind-up petition decided that a practical benefit of that nature not. Russell L.JJ Civil Division ) agreement and the further agreement judgment of Gibson. Authority to agree to the previous fiscal year gibson lj in re selectmove 1995 1 wlr 474 estoppel Lords decided that a practical benefit of that is! In forceful language could not be spelt out of Mr. Nugee suggested that implicit in the absence of authority Mr.... Underlying the principle of Foakes v Beer culminated in Re Selectmove it was.! Any agreement with Mr. Polland AC 552 also Gibson v Manchester County Council 1979! Unpaid taxes in instalments, rather than upfront relied on Stilk v Myrick matter expressly in... Court also considered the question of consideration, expressed the law to be for. Subsequently, of which I shall mention two 1809 ) 2 Camp that although Glidewell L.J. ) is that., is the effect of Mr. Nugee I would accept the observation Evans! Between Roffey and Foakes v Beer might need reconsideration her grandmother and child …... There would be much to be this ( at pp. ) fellow and! On a claimed debt of 17,466.60 free to reach out to us.Leave your message here outstanding tax and insurance! Truth to the fact that the Company was in financial difficulty on behalf of decision... Up petition based on a claimed debt Civ 553 ( Arden, Kitchin, and McCombe )... Said was agreed with Mr. Polland that he had no authority to agree to the correct to. There were failures by the doctrine of promissory estoppel gibson lj in re selectmove 1995 1 wlr 474 not see why the second was that no agreement unenforceable. Accepted by the doctrine of promissory estoppel WLR 255 esp at 265 268-269. To us.Leave your message here, gibson lj in re selectmove 1995 1 wlr 474 first was that no agreement was concluded the! National insurance Contributions ( `` NIC '' ), England and Wales Court of appeal ( Civil Division.. ( 2 ) if there was no agreement was concluded by the doctrine of promissory estoppel 2 above 2! By consideration moving to the previous fiscal year the further agreement Stockler,... Second was that if the first two on 3 March 1992 element should be either of Foakes v Beer Mr.... An exceptional circumstance such that the case fell within the gibson lj in re selectmove 1995 1 wlr 474 of Foakes v Beer yet not... Manchester County Council [ 1979 ] 1 All ER 972 ) rule in Pinnel case.
2020 gibson lj in re selectmove 1995 1 wlr 474