Wright & Anor v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd

The case of Wright & Anor v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd involved the plaintiffs, Jacki Wright and Planley Pty Ltd, suing the defendant, Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd, over the renewal of a concession agreement. Jacki Wright, who initially worked as a freelance journalist on Hamilton Island, had been granted a concession for "The Sportsman's Lounge" which was to be established. After the lounge and a proposed Thai restaurant did not eventuate, Wright accepted a concession for the Airport Bar. The dispute centred around the renewability of the five-year licence agreements, with the plaintiffs asserting an equitable estoppel and estoppel by convention to prevent the defendant from denying the existence of an agreement for renewal. The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs had established the necessary elements of an estoppel by representation, including assumption, inducement, reliance, knowledge, detriment, and unconscionability.

The court found that the plaintiffs had established the necessary elements of estoppel by representation. The plaintiffs had assumed that the licence agreements would be renewable and the defendant had induced this assumption through representations. The plaintiffs had acted in reliance on these assumptions by changing their lives and foregoing other opportunities. The defendant knew or intended the plaintiffs to rely on these assumptions. The plaintiffs would suffer detriment if the assumptions were not fulfilled, as they would lose the value of their business and goodwill. The court also found that the defendant's actions in going back on the promises would be unconscionable. Thus, all elements of estoppel by representation were satisfied, and the court was satisfied that the representations were sufficiently certain to form the basis of an estoppel.

The court concluded that Ms Wright's claim of estoppel based on representations was made out and ordered a declaration that the defendant was estopped from denying the existence of an agreement for renewal of Ms Wright’s licence. The court also considered the alternative basis of estoppel by convention or common assumption, finding that the plaintiffs had established an entitlement to relief on this basis as well. The court rejected the defendant's special defences of laches, acquiescence, delay, and counter-estoppel. The court reserved the question of the form of relief, whether by injunction or damages, to the quantum trial. The court ordered that pending the resolution of this issue, there should be an injunction restraining the defendant from terminating the licence or dispossessing the plaintiff.