In promissory estoppel, the reasonableness of an alleged assumption is relevant only as a factual indicator of whether the assumption was in fact held; the correct question is whether the assumption was reasonably open to the claimant, not whether it was objectively reasonable. Direct evidence of reliance in estoppel cases is inherently self-serving and should be assessed with the same caution as hypothetical evidence, by reference to objective facts and circumstances. The primary judge's error on the reasonableness test was immaterial where the estoppel defence failed on independent factual findings as to assumption and reliance.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 26 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 26 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.