''Willmott v Barber'', (1880) 15 Ch D 96, is an 1880 English case decided by Justice

Edward Fry Sir Edward Fry, (4 November 1827 – 19 October 1918) was an English Lord Justice of Appeal (1883–1892) and an arbitrator on the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Biography Joseph Fry (1795-1879) and Mary Ann Swaine were his parents. He was ...

. The case is often cited for its holding regarding the doctrine of

estoppel Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person being sanctioned is "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from ...

by acquiescence or

proprietary estoppel Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary est ...

. The plaintiff, Willmott, was suing two defendants, John Barber and William Bowyer. Barber had agreed to sell the plaintiff a leasehold interest in land. He also agreed that he would compel Bowyer, the holder of another lease, to consent to the assignment of that lease. The plaintiff argued that Bowyer was precluded (estopped) from objecting to the assignment, even though he had the legal power to make such an objection. The plaintiff claimed that Barber and Bowyer were acting in collusion, and that Bowyer had refused assent to the assignment on Barber's instructions. Therefore, allowing him to refuse consent would work a gross fraud upon the plaintiff. The court held that the plaintiff could prevail only if he established all of the elements. First, he must establish that he had made a mistake as to his legal rights. Second, he must have expended money or done some act in reliance on the mistaken belief. Third, the defendant must know that his right is inconsistent with the acts of the plaintiff. Fourthly, the plaintiff must have proof that the land owner was aware of his title. Finally, the defendant must have actively encouraged the plaintiff in acting to his detriment. These are known as the five probanda of Fry J. in Willmott v Barber. In this case, the court held that the plaintiff had not established all of these element. Therefore, the defendant could not be compelled to consent to the assignment. While it is cited in many contracts casebooks used in American law schools, Willmott is rarely cited by American courts. It is, however, cited fairly frequently by British and Canadian courts. For example, in ''Desoto Resources Limited v. Encana Corporation'', 2010 ABQB 448, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench cites it as the "classic statement of the constituent elements of estoppel by acquiescence." The full text of the decision is available at Google Books.

References

{{Reflist English enforceability case law English estoppel case law 1880 in British law High Court of Justice cases 1880 in case law