Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130

Central London Property Trust leased a block of flats to High Trees House at an annual rent of £2,500. During the Second World War many flats were unoccupied, and the landlord agreed to accept £1,250 a year. The reduction was not supported by fresh consideration. By early 1945 the flats were fully let again. The landlord then sought the balance necessary to bring rent for the later period up to the original rate. The litigation required consideration of the scope of the wartime concession and the effect of the tenant having acted on it.

Could the landlord recover full rent after occupancy recovered, and what effect did the relied-upon wartime promise have on the earlier concession period?

Denning J held that the landlord was entitled to the full rent for the period claimed after the conditions justifying the reduction had ended. By early 1945 the flats were fully occupied, so the temporary concession no longer applied. The promise was construed in its wartime context rather than as a permanent alteration of the lease.

The important discussion of promissory estoppel concerned the earlier reduced-rent period. Denning J stated that a promise intended to affect legal relations and acted upon could bind the promisor within its proper scope despite lacking fresh consideration. Recovery of those earlier arrears was not the claim being decided, so that aspect was obiter. The judgment did not make every unsupported promise independently enforceable.

A clear promise not to insist on strict legal rights may bind the promisor in equity where it is intended to be acted upon, is relied upon and retraction would be inequitable. Its effect depends on its scope and circumstances; it does not generally create an independent cause of action.

High Trees is the modern starting point for promissory estoppel, but students must separate its result from its influential obiter discussion. Combe v Combe later clarified the doctrine's defensive role. Foakes v Beer remains relevant to the separate question of consideration for accepting part-payment, while Collier shows why debt compromises can raise an arguable estoppel defence. Neither automatic extinguishment nor an absolute rule of suspension adequately describes every possible effect of an estoppel.