Patrick Parkinson has asserted that ‘a single doctrine of equitable estoppel’ was ‘established from the majority judgments in Waltons Stores (Interstate) v Maher’ (P Parkinson (ed), The Principles of Equity, (LBC Information Services: 1996), 222).
However, Young, Croft and Smith, On Equity (Lawbook Co: 2009) at 829, contend that ‘the idea that there was one overarching principle governing all cases of equitable estoppel’ is ‘heresy’ and ‘has now been jettisoned’.
In your opinion, which of these represents the more accurate statement of the law today? Why? Does it matter which view is correct?
You should support your argument by detailed reference to at least four cases.