A person claiming conventional estoppel must demonstrate that they would have acted differently but for the common assumption; there can be no real detriment if the party asserting the estoppel would have been in the same position in any event. Where a judge overlooks a pleaded defence, the appropriate course is usually an application under r 36.16 UCPR to set aside the judgment, not a motion for a new trial under s 126 of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW), though failure to take this course does not preclude an appeal. Pre-judgment interest under s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ordinarily runs from the date the cause of action arose, not from the date proceedings were commenced.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 50 later cases that cite this judgment.
8 of the 50 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.