Abstract:
Over the last 30 years, the New Zealand courts have steadily expanded the boundaries of equitable estoppel. There is no longer a meaningful distinction between equitable and proprietary estoppel: instead they have been collapsed into a single doctrine designed to prevent the detriment that would arise from the estopped party’s change of position. The New Zealand courts have also held that this broad‐based estoppel can create a cause of action as well as be a defence against one. Furthermore, the New Zealand courts have no difficulties in allowing a claim of equitable estoppel to succeed in a strictly commercial transaction, even if reliance I such cases is arguably “unreasonable”. Finally, the Court of Appeal has held that a “flexible” approach to remedies is to be preferred. This paper will evaluate the current status of equitable estoppel in New Zealand and will seek to answer the question is estoppel being applied too broadly? If it is being applied too broadly, what impact will this have on contract law in this country? In answering these questions, this paper will compare the New Zealand approach to the current Australian position. This is a useful cross‐check since the Australian caselaw was so influential on the development of estoppel in New Zealand.