Crown Melbourne Limited v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty LtdCitation:[2016] HCA 26Before:French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon JJDate:20 Jul 2016Case Number:M253/2015Read more

Crown Melbourne Limited v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty LtdCitation:[2016] HCA 26Before:French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon JJDate:20 Jul 2016Case Number:M253/2015Read more

The court held that the landlord's statement was not sufficiently promissory or certain to constitute a collateral contract or to give rise to an estoppel. The statement did not amount to a binding contractual promise, nor was it capable of conveying to a reasonable person that a further lease would be offered.

Parties
Applicant: Tenants; Respondent: Landlord
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Collateral Contract, Promissory Estoppel, Proprietary Estoppel, Lease Renewal, Certainty of Contract
Contract Law Property Law Estoppel Collateral Contract Promissory Estoppel Proprietary Estoppel Lease Renewal Certainty of Contract

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tenants

Applicant

Landlord

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord's statement constituted a collateral contract
  2. 2 Whether the landlord's statement was promissory in nature
  3. 3 Whether the statement gave rise to estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the landlord's statement was not sufficiently promissory or certain to constitute a collateral contract or to give rise to an estoppel. The statement did not amount to a binding contractual promise, nor was it capable of conveying to a reasonable person that a further lease would be offered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.