← Cases database

Case record

Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd

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)

  • Contract law
  • Equity
  • Civil law
  • Equitable Promissory Estoppel

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 .

Facts

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.

Evidence

1937 ground lease deed, 1940 rent reduction agreement letters, occupancy logs, and financial accounting ledgers.

Arguments

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.

Judgment

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).

Court's Reasoning

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.

Rule / Principle Established

Established modern in English contract law as an equitable defense against strict common law contractual enforcement.

Significance

Established modern in English contract law as an equitable defense against strict common law contractual enforcement.

Beyond borders

Comparative legal analysis

Comparative analysis has not yet been prepared for this case. Request one below.

Request comparative analysis

Ask the editorial team to read this judgment against another legal system.

Sources & references

  • Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd, High Court of Justice (King's Bench Division) (1947)

The circle

Community discussion

One thread for this judgment. Replies stay with the case, so the discussion reads as a single conversation rather than a feed.

All discussions

Community guidelines

  • Remain respectful; disagree with the argument, never the person.
  • Stay on the legal question raised by this judgment.
  • Support legal claims with reliable authority.
  • Quote accurately and attribute every borrowed idea. No plagiarism.
  • No promotion, no spam, no legal advice.
  • Academic discussion is encouraged, including well-reasoned dissent.

Judgment poll

Do you agree with the Court’s decision?