Whitehouse v BHP Steel Ltd

The appeal concerned a dispute between Whitehouse and BHP Steel Ltd. Whitehouse sought to rely on a conventional estoppel against BHP Steel, alleging that BHP Steel had fostered an assumption in Whitehouse that certain payments would be made. The appeal was heard by Giles, Tobias, and McColl JJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Whitehouse could successfully establish a conventional estoppel against BHP Steel, particularly given that Whitehouse was the source of the assumption and whether BHP Steel had acted in a way that fostered this assumption. The court also considered whether Whitehouse had suffered prejudice as a result of BHP Steel's conduct, and whether an argument not raised at trial could be considered on appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that Whitehouse could not establish a conventional estoppel. The court reasoned that Whitehouse was the party who had made the assumption, and there was no evidence that BHP Steel had induced or fostered this assumption. Furthermore, the court noted that Whitehouse had not demonstrated any prejudice arising from BHP Steel's conduct. The court also held that parties are generally bound by the way they conducted their case at trial, and arguments not raised at that stage would not be considered on appeal.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.