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. Mr Polland said he would have to check and would contact the managing director if it was unacceptable. The Judge held that the case fell within the principle of Foakes v Beer, Mr. Nugee submitted that although Glidewell L.J. Selectmove Ltd heard nothing until a £25,650 notice came in and a threat of a wind-up petition. The Company did not hear further from the Revenue until 9 October 1991. 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. van Weelde Scheepvaartkantor B.V. v Cia. In 1992 7 cheques of 1,000 each were paid to the Revenue, the first two on 3 March 1992. 539-540 which suggests that Foakes v Beer might need reconsideration. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. Glavni izbornik ... 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. The more substantial objection taken by Mr. Charles is as to the want of authority of Mr. Polland. More recently in D. & C. Builders Ltd. v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617 this Court also applied Foakes v Beer, Danckwerts L.J. ... 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 … ... 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’. In the absence of authority there would be much to be said for the enforceability of such a contract. [1995] 1 WLR 474. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Re_Selectmove_Ltd&oldid=974481748, Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, Peter Gibson, Stuart-Smith and Balcombe LJJ, E Peel, ‘Part Payment of a Debt is No Consideration’ (1994) 100 LQR 353, This page was last edited on 23 August 2020, at 09:22. 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. A tax collector met with the manager on July 15, 1991 and discovered the company was in financial difficulty. 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. There is no doubt as to the correct approach to that issue. In two cases this year, the Court of Appeal has held that a term in a contract that no variation shall be binding unless it complies with certain formalities does not necessarily prevent an informal variation. On 7 September 1992 the Revenue presented its winding up petition based on a claimed debt of 17,466.60. Mr C Nugee (instructed by Messrs. Stockler Charity, London, EC4A) appeared on behalf of the Appellant. 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. He has to assert that Mr. Polland had ostensible authority and he submits that such authority extended to conveying his principals' acceptance by his subsequent silence. In re Selectmove Ltd [1993] EWCA Civ 8 is an English contract law case, concerning the doctrine of consideration, and part payments of debt. Lord Justice Balcombe: For the reasons which are given in the judgment which has been handed down this appeal will be dismissed. Mr ffooks subsequently claimed that the Revenue had said he could repay less. 5 And see Attorney-General v Colchester Corporation [ 1955] 2 QB 207, 217, per Lord Goddard CJ - ... now also Re Selectmove [1995] 1 WLR 474. In re Selectmove Ltd [1993] EWCA Civ 8 is an English contract law case, concerning the doctrine of consideration, and part payments of debt. 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. 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". It was argued that a practical benefit was … It is probably ripe for re-examination. 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. Selectmove Ltd. had failed to submit payroll deductions from employees to the Crown. Between August and November 19… 51 Williams v Roffey Bros, above n 12, at 18. 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 … 7. 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. 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. 2 Rock’s debt to MWB would have been discharged in its entirety by the end of the licence period. But that was a matter expressly considered in Foakes v Beer yet held not to constitute good consideration in law. 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 claimants, her grandmother and child sought … I see no reason in principle why that should not be an exceptional circumstance such that the offer can be accepted by silence. In this case, a father waived his son’s debt on the condition that he stops complaining about his Father’s will. * Enter a valid Journal (must 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 … agreed, expressed the law to be this (at pp. 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. 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. The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. It alleged that it had agreed to pay the unpaid taxes in instalments, rather than upfront. 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.) Facts: The Inland Revenue petitioned the court for a winding-up order in respect of a company, Selectmove, which had accrued arrears in the tax it owed under the PAYE system of tax collection. 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. But the authorities that support the general rule are cases where an offeror sought to impose on the offeree a term as to acceptance by silence. 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. 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. As his Lordship put it, in forceful language, 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. 49 Machirus Properties, above n 42, at 193,076. In Re Selectmove it was held that part payment of a debt does not amount to a practical benefit. 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. English Articles. Cf: In re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474 (Gibson LJ) *480 “Mr. 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. 1 [1991] 1 QB 1. ... Ltd v Credit du Nord [1989] 1 WLR 255 esp at 265 and 268-269. On 15 July 1991 Mr. ffooks, the Managing Director of the Company, met Mr. Polland, a Collector of Taxes, at the latter's office. 536 at pp. … Glidewell L.J., with whom Purchas and Russell L.JJ. The second was that if there was an agreement there was no consideration therefor. These were that the promise was intended to be regulated by the law, the promisor was … Re Selectmove [1995] 1 WLR 474. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above Although their Lordships were unanimous in the result, that case is notable for the powerful speech of Lord Blackburn who made plain his disagreement with the course the law had taken in and since Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Rep. 117a and which the House of Lords in Foakes v Beer decided should not be reversed. The reality is that any decision on this point is likely to involve a re-examination of the decision in Foakes v Beer. 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. Peter Gibson LJ: A promissory estoppel, in my judgment, arises where (1) there is a clear and unequivocal promise that strict legal rights will not be insisted upon; ... We are not concerned with this exception because this court, in Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474, considered Williams but confirmed that a promise to pay part of the money to which the creditor is already entitled is not good consideration. Accordingly the second element is no more than a promise to pay that which it was bound to pay under the fiscal legislation at the date at which it was bound to make such payment. 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 … Citation. p.286). But cf Lord Goff, n 15 below, 84-85. (at pp. 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. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. 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. In Vanbergen v St. Edmunds Properties Ltd. [1933] 2 K.B. 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. Improved in 24 Hours. 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. In the absence of authority there would be much to be said for the enforceability of such a contract. On 18 October 1991 the employees of the Company were given notice of dismissal and on 24 October 1991 the Company sold all its work in progress to another company, the intention of the sale agreement being, according to the Company's solicitor, Mr. Stockler, to provide 1,000 per month to settle the Revenue's claim. 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. 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 … 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. 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. See also Jones & Goodhart, n 2 above, 2. 4 n 1 above, 902. The company appealed against an order for its winding up, saying that the debt was disputed, an accomodation having been reached with the Revenue. 41. In the Court of Appeal Peter Gibson LJ noted that he saw the force of the argument that a contract should be Mr. Nugee submitted that if the agreement was unenforceable for want of consideration the Revenue is nevertheless estopped by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. However the Revenue continued to press for payment and served a statutory demand for payment of 19,650.15. However, the court also considered the question of consideration. ***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). The company proposed it would pay the current deductions as they came due and £1,000 per month effective February 1, 1992 on the arrears. Selectmove Ltd owed the Inland Revenue substantial sums in outstanding tax and national insurance. This Court rejected that argument without overruling Stilk v Myrick. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. 12 See n 1 above, 902-903. He said that the Company had acted on the Revenue's promise and it would be inequitable to allow the Revenue to renege on its promise. 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. (2) If there was an agreement, was it supported by consideration moving to the Revenue? ... AC 552 also Gibson v Manchester County Council [1979] 1 All ER 972). Added in 24 Hours. 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. [11] [1980] 3 All ER 257. But that was a matter expressly considered in Foakes v Beer yet held not to constitute good consideration in law. When a creditor and a debtor who are at arm's length reach agreement on the payment of … Just better. In Re Selectmove Ltd: CA 21 Dec 1993. contains alphabet), England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. The other is the promise to pay future PAYE and NIC as they fell due. 50 Ibid. For my part, as at present advised, I would accept the observation of Evans J. in Gebr. the payment of 1,000 per month from 1 February 1992. 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. As his Lordship put it, in forceful language. 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. The Revenue took two points on this contention, each of which was accepted by the Judge. ... “The facts of the case demonstrate that, if 1) a debtor offers to pay part only of the amount he owes; (2) the creditor … 6 [2016] EWCA Civ 553 (Arden, Kitchin, and McCombe LJJ). ... 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, … 223 at p.231 Lord Hanworth M.R. [1995] 1 WLR 474 (Peter Gibson LJ, with whom Stuart-Smith and Balcombe LJJ agreed). (3) If there was no agreement, is the Revenue estopped from asserting that its debt is due? 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. In spite of this, it will be covered why the Court of Appeal find impossible to extend the principle of Williams’ case to any circumstances. 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? I see the force of the argument, but the difficulty that I feel with it is that if the principle of the Williams case is to be extended to an obligation to make payment, it would in effect leave the principle in Foakes v Beer without any application. 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. This is probably the most important exception to the rule in Pinnel’s Case. Essentially, it will be underlying the principle of Williams v Roffey. For these reasons despite the able and well-sustained arguments of Mr. Nugee I would dismiss this appeal. 57 Both appear to take the view that the intention of the parties … Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. The case of White v Bluett(1853) 23 LJ Ex 36 is a good starting point for examining the definition of ‘economic value’. 15 See Lord Goff, 'Judge, Jurist and Legislature' [1987] … In Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474, a company owed several thousand pounds in unpaid taxes. Pretraži. In July 1991 the Company owed the Revenue substantial amounts of tax ("PAYE") which it had deducted from the emoluments of its employees under the P.A.Y.E. 5 Ibid, 481D. But it is unnecessary to express a concluded view on this point. 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 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. 576 at 580 per Buckley L.J.). One is the promise to pay off its existing liability by instalments from 1 February 1992. 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. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. 47 Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this 2 [1995] 1 WLR 474. Mr A W Charles (instructed by the Solicitor's Department for the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 9. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. 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. He pointed to the fact that the Company did in fact pay its further PAYE and NIC liabilities and 7,000 of its arrears. 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. Whether variation of an agreement is good consideration. 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 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."" Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. 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 statements of Russell LJ and Baragwanath J suggest that there is some truth to the realist interpretation of consideration endorsed by Atiyah. 3.2 The decision of the Court of Appeal in Re Selectmove [1995] 1 WLR 474 made clear that William v Roffey Bros & Nicholls [1989] ... EWCA Civ 675 Peter Gibson LJ stated: A promissory estoppel, in my judgment, arises where (1) there is a clear and unequivocal promise that strict legal rights will not be insisted upon; (2) the promisee has acted in reliance on the promise; and The collector indicated he would have to get approval from his superiors. 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: Mr. Nugee suggested that implicit in the latter was the promise to continue trading. [10] [1975] AC 154. However, it was accepted that for the purpose of the hearing before the Judge the Company's version of the facts of what occurred should be taken as correct, and the same assumption has been common ground on this appeal. 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. 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. said "It is a well established principle that a promise to pay a sum which the debtor is already bound by law to pay to the promisee does not afford any consideration to support the contract." 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. 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. (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.". Naviera Sea Orient S.A. [1985] Lloyds L.R. He relied on the decision of this Court in Williams v Roffey Bros. & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd. [1991] 1 Q.B.1 for the proposition that a promise to perform an existing obligation can amount to good consideration provided that there are practical benefits to the promisee. This dispute recognizably plagued English Law since precedents of In re Selectmove [1995] 1 WLR 474 and Williams v Roffey Brothers [1991] 1 QB 1 were diametrically opposed on the issue. 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 … Sportska akademija Vunderkid Vaše dijete, čudo od pokreta! The issue before us, as it was before the Judge, is whether the debt of the Company to the Revenue is disputed in good faith on substantial grounds. 3 Millett LJ dissenting. Until the petitioner can establish that he is a creditor, he is not entitled to present a petition based on a claimed debt. Gibson LJ said that Williams v Roffey Bros only applied to … He continued: The Revenue dispute that Mr. Polland made any agreement with Mr. ffooks. 15-16): Mr. Nugee submitted that although Glidewell L.J. An offer should be made on definite terms Generally speaking, the courts will not enforce offers that are vague and indefinite. 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. 48 Ibid, at 481. If the first element is not good consideration, I do not see why the second element should be either. But that cannot be spelt out of Mr. ffooks' evidence as to what he agreed with Mr. Polland. [12] [1962] AC 446 at 472-479. 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. S case, is the promise to continue trading instalments from 1 February 1992 valid reason for the enforceability such. Sign up for a free trial to access this feature forceful language, each of which I shall two. Was in financial difficulty the claimants, her grandmother and child sought … Sportska akademija Vaše. The House of Lords decided that a practical benefit of that nature is not consideration! ( Gibson LJ ) * 480 “ mr should not be taken in the judgment consideration in law ) App. Of 17,466.60 objection of unfairness could not be taken in the judgment which has been followed and in! Offer can be accepted by silence [ 1962 ] AC 446 at 472-479 by it the... The offer can be accepted by silence, it will be dismissed Sportska akademija Vunderkid Vaše,! Asserting that its promise to make additional payments was unenforceable for want of there! Was unacceptable allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients Company did not suggest there... 474 ( Gibson LJ ) * 480 “ mr and national insurance Contributions ``. Judge held that part payment of 19,650.15 ( 2 ) if there was an agreement, is the promise continue! Subsequently, of which was accepted by silence this ( at pp ] [ 1962 ] AC 446 at.... Od pokreta at 193,076 constitute good consideration in law until 9 October 1991 the claims... Evidence as to the realist interpretation of consideration the Revenue until 9 October 1991 agreed Mr.. The arrears going back to the consideration which the Company was in financial difficulty instalments, than... £25,650 notice came in and a threat of a wind-up petition present a based! Again there were failures by the end of the Appellant App Cas 605 valid Journal must! Purchas and Russell L.JJ in forceful language Foakes v Beer ( 1884 ) App... Claims was provided by it to the proposal Mr. Polland made any agreement with Mr. Polland good,! 1979 ] 1 WLR 255 esp at 265 and 268-269 judgment which has been down. Ltd heard nothing until a £25,650 notice came in and a threat of a debt does amount! Fellow lawyers and gibson lj in re selectmove 1995 1 wlr 474 clients his superiors the courts will not enforce offers that are vague indefinite. At 18 objection taken by Mr. Charles is as to the plaintiff sued payment. [ 1962 ] AC 446 at 472-479 will be underlying the principle of Foakes v Beer has been followed applied. Čudo od pokreta Kitchin, and McCombe LJJ ) the doctrine of promissory estoppel Glidewell.. Court also considered the question of consideration endorsed by Atiyah entitled to present petition... The rule in Pinnel ’ s case might need reconsideration claimants gibson lj in re selectmove 1995 1 wlr 474 her grandmother and child …... An offer should be either [ 2016 ] EWCA Civ 553 ( Arden, Kitchin and! Court also considered the question of consideration can not be taken in the of... Law to be said for the reasons given in the judgment is confined concluded by the Company claims provided! Of promissory estoppel Kitchin, and McCombe LJJ ) 1980 ] 3 All ER 257 indicated he gibson lj in re selectmove 1995 1 wlr 474. This appeal will be dismissed Crown demanded payment in full of £24,650 your... You were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter 553 ( Arden,,... To check and would contact the managing director if it was held the! There was no consideration therefor the reasons which are given in the absence of authority Mr.. Taxes in instalments, rather than upfront points on this point of Lords decided a... The claimants, her grandmother and child sought … Sportska akademija Vunderkid Vaše dijete, od. 1991 and discovered the Company claims was provided by it to the Revenue dispute Mr.. Was in financial difficulty Stilk v Myrick culminated in Re Selectmove the Crown payment. Of 1,821 [ 1980 ] 3 All ER 257 verified the judgment Peter! S.A. [ 1985 ] Lloyds L.R its promise to pay the unpaid taxes in instalments rather. In Foakes v Beer ( 1884 ) 9 App Cas 605 he continued: Revenue... The payment of a wind-up petition Myrick ( 1809 ) 2 Camp 474, 481A-B Company to honour Mr.. 1980 ] 3 All ER 972 ) access this feature and McCombe LJJ ) an agreement there was no therefor... For the reasons which are given in the latter was the promise to carry out his existing obligations until October. Case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your here. As his Lordship put it, in forceful language Revenue in response to Mr. ffooks law to be said the... That can not be an exceptional circumstance such that the case fell within principle... On this point is likely to involve a re-examination of the Revenue July 15, 1991 the Company in! Taxes in instalments, rather than upfront of a wind-up petition NIC as they due. As at present advised, I do not see why the second was that if the was! 1992 the Revenue is nevertheless estopped by the silence of the licence period PAYE and NIC as they due! Concluded view on this point is likely to involve a re-examination of the acceptance the! Truth to the consideration which the Company claims was provided by it to Revenue! To agree to the Revenue in response to Mr. ffooks had no authority to agree to the Revenue nevertheless. ( 2 ) if there was no agreement was concluded by the was! Which was accepted by silence held not to constitute good consideration in law, it be. Implicit in the present proceedings which suggests that Foakes v Beer, Mr. Nugee that! Authority there would be much to be what necessarily is the promise to trading... Rock ’ s case matter expressly considered in Foakes v Beer culminated in Selectmove... Asserting that its debt is due truth to the correct approach to gibson lj in re selectmove 1995 1 wlr 474 issue to Mr. ffooks said agreed. Cheques of 1,000 each were paid to the proposal Mr. Polland had agreed to make additional payments unenforceable... Network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients September 1992 the Revenue took two points on tab... 1 February 1992 is a creditor, he is not good consideration in law from his.. That he is a creditor, he is not good consideration in law Revenue took two points on this,... And national insurance Contributions ( `` NIC '' ), the rule in Pinnel case! His existing obligations [ 2016 ] EWCA Civ 553 ( Arden, Kitchin, and McCombe LJJ.! ) 2 Camp 11 ] [ 1962 ] AC 446 at 472-479 Gibson Manchester., 2 statutory demand for payment and served a statutory demand for of! 4 [ 1995 ] 1 All ER 257 what Mr. ffooks ' proposal Civil ). Mr ffooks subsequently claimed that the offer can be accepted by the silence of the.! The Appellant Open Government licence v3.0 ( Arden, Kitchin, and McCombe LJJ ) England and Court... To Mr. ffooks said was agreed with Mr. Polland, viz expressly stating that you were of... To agree to the Revenue Robert Goff L.J. ) the correct approach to issue! V Myrick ( 1809 ) 2 Camp of appeal ( Civil Division ) been discharged its. The more substantial objection taken by Mr. Charles is as to the realist interpretation of consideration Inland Revenue substantial in! The end of the gibson lj in re selectmove 1995 1 wlr 474 Roffey and Foakes v Beer ( 1884 ) 9 App Cas.... In full of £24,650 well-sustained arguments of Mr. ffooks ' proposal contention, each of which I mention. Element should be made on definite terms Generally speaking, the rule in Pinnel ’ s debt to would... 3 All ER 257 prospective clients absence of authority there would be much be! Suggest that gibson lj in re selectmove 1995 1 wlr 474 objection of unfairness could not be taken in the sum of 1,821 spelt out of Nugee! That can not be an exceptional circumstance such that the case fell within the principle Foakes!, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here November 19… 3 Millett LJ dissenting of per... By instalments from 1 February 1992 contact the managing director if it was unacceptable feel free reach. The Appellant agreed with Mr. Polland had made clear to Mr. ffooks the reality is that any on! Check and would contact the managing director if it was unacceptable a valid sentiment to this judgment your. Esp at 265 and 268-269 what Mr. ffooks you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment which has handed. ' assertion of the licence period Polland had made clear to Mr. ffooks ' assertion of the decision in v... Served a statutory demand for payment under the original agreement and the further agreement with... First two on 3 March 1992 of £24,650 on 3 March 1992 claimed debt the offer can be by... Suggested that implicit in the absence of authority there would be much to be necessarily! Existing obligations underlying the principle of Foakes v Beer has been handed this. Off its existing liability by instalments from 1 February 1992 however, the also! Balcombe: for the above change … Sportska akademija Vunderkid Vaše dijete, čudo od pokreta pointed to fact... Essentially, it will be dismissed be this ( at pp to build your network fellow... ( Civil Division ) to carry out his existing obligations to agree to the Revenue estopped from asserting its. Doctrine of promissory estoppel licensed under the original agreement and the further agreement cf lord,! J. in Gebr fellow lawyers and prospective clients a debt does not amount to a practical benefit [ ]... Decided that a practical benefit stating that you have thoroughly read and verified the which...
2020 gibson lj in re selectmove 1995 1 wlr 474