Overview
High Trees ([1947] KB 130) established the modern doctrine of in contract law, preventing parties from going back on promises made during contractual performance even in the absence of formal .
Case record
Country
United Kingdom
Court
High Court of Justice (King's Bench Division)
Year
1947
Areas of Law
Contract law, Equity, Civil law
Citation
Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd, High Court of Justice (King's Bench Division) (1947)
High Trees ([1947] KB 130) established the modern doctrine of in contract law, preventing parties from going back on promises made during contractual performance even in the absence of formal .
In 1937, Central London Property Trust leased a block of flats to High Trees House Ltd for £2,500 per year. Due to WWII air raids, occupancy dropped, and in 1940 the landlord agreed in writing to reduce rent to £1,250 per year. By 1945, the flats were fully occupied again, and the landlord sued to recover full rent for the last two quarters of 1945 and assert full rent for the future.
Equitable
1937 ground lease deed, 1940 rent reduction agreement letters, occupancy logs, and financial accounting ledgers.
The landlord argued that the 1940 rent reduction was unenforceable for lack of under common law rules (Foakes v Beer). High Trees argued the landlord was bound by its representation not to demand full rent during wartime conditions.
Lord Denning held that the landlord was entitled to restore full rent for the future (post-1945), but was equitable stopped from claiming back-rent for the wartime years (1940–1945).
Justice Denning invoked equity to formulate : where one party makes a clear promise intended to create legal relations, knowing it will be relied upon, and the other party acts upon it, equity will prevent the promisor from asserting strict legal rights inconsistent with that promise.
Established modern in English contract law as an equitable defense against strict common law contractual enforcement.
Established modern in English contract law as an equitable defense against strict common law contractual enforcement.
Beyond borders
Comparative analysis has not yet been prepared for this case. Request one below.
Ask the editorial team to read this judgment against another legal system.
The circle
One thread for this judgment. Replies stay with the case, so the discussion reads as a single conversation rather than a feed.
Community guidelines
Judgment poll