Herald of Civil Procedure
EN
main-photo

We in a citing index:

ESTOPPEL IN THE CONTEXT OF RUSSIAN CIVIL PROCEDURE: ASPECTS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE

THE FUTURE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE


A.V. YAKHIMOVICH

A.V. YAKHIMOVICH,
Doctoral Candidate, Department of Civil Procedure,
Law Faculty, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Master of Laws,
Edinburgh School of Law, University of Edinburgh

Substantive due process is commonly recognized as fundamental guarantee of a person’s
access to justice. One of the main conditions guaranteeing observance of the due process is
litigants’ comprehensive sets of procedural rights. Ways in which they can assert their rights
should be exhaustively defined as well. The extent of thoroughness of regulation may be
different but it may not be absent. In that respect estoppel as a legal principle, which lacks
formal requirements in the law, is problematic. The sustainability of judgements which are
reasoned by way of employing a broad undefined concept of estoppel is questioned. One of
the biggest doubts discussed is the viability of an idea where promissory estoppel is used as
a source of a general estoppel concept. It is argued that promissory estoppel being a specific
English obligation law instrument cannot be used as a source of limiting procedural rights
of litigants. As for estoppel by representation, it can be safely adopted because of its nature
as a source of identifying principal issues of fact. It has nothing to do with establishing or
banning any personal or procedural rights. But in order to safely implement this type of
estoppel it has to be thoroughly considered as to how exactly this instrument of procedure
will be married with the current court’s legal duties. It has to decide cases upon all and
truly established issues of fact in question. The problem is not a trivial one as even in
leading English legal texts it is recognized the contradiction between court’s inquisitorial
duties and using of these types of estoppel.

Keywords: due process; estoppel by representation; promissory estoppel; evaluation of
evidence; question of fact; sustainability of judgements.

References

Agnew S. The Meaning and Significance of Conscience in Private Law. Cambridge
Law Journal. 2018. Vol. 77(3). P. 479–505.
Amosov S.M. Sudebnoe poznanie v arbitrazhnom protsesse [Judicial Knowledge in
Arbitration Procedure]. Moscow: Russian Law Academy, 2004. 321 p. (In Russ.)
Argunov V.V., Dolova M.O. O tak nazyvaemykh standartakh dokazyvaniia primenitel’no
k otechestvennomu sudoproizvodstvu [On So-Called Standards of Proof as Applied to
Domestic Proceedings]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa – Herald of Civil Procedure, 2019,
no. 2, pp. 76–104. (In Russ.)
Barnes M. The Law of Estoppel. Hart Publishing, 2020. 984 p.
Beale H.G., Burrows A.S., Chitty J. Chitty on Contracts. 33rd ed. Sweet & Maxwell, 2018.
4963 p.
Beatson J., Burrows A., Cartwright J. Anson’s Law of Contract. 31st ed. Oxford University
Press, 2020. 816 p.
Borisova E.A. Kassatsiia po grazhdanskim delam: monografiia [Cassation in Civil Cases:
Monograph]. Moscow: Gorodets, 2020. 208 p. (In Russ.)
Briggs M.T. Equity in Business. Law Quarterly Review, 2019, vol. 135, p. 567.
Burmistrova S.A. Protsessual’nye sredstva realizatsii i zashchity pravovykh interesov
[Procedural Means of Implementation and Protection of Legal Interests]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo
protsessa – Herald of Civil Procedure, 2018, no. 6, pp. 71–96. (In Russ.)
Cartwright J. Formation and Variation of Contract. 2nd ed. Sweet & Maxwell, 2018. 200 p.
Chechina N.A. Osnovnye napravleniia razvitiia nauki sovetskogo grazhdanskogo
protsessual’nogo prava [The Main Directions of Development of Science of Soviet Civil Procedural
Law]. Leningrad: Leningrad University Publishing House, 1987. 104 p. (In Russ.)
Chernykh A.P. Estoppel, mirovoe soglashenie i tolkovanie dogovorov (kommentarii
k postanovleniiu Prezidiuma VAS RF ot 22.03.2011 № 13903/10) [Estoppel, Settlement
Agreement and the Interpretation of Contracts (Commentary to the Decree of the Presidium
of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of 22 March 2011
No. 13903/10)]. Zakon – Law, 2012, no. 6, pp. 108–113. (In Russ.)
Chernykh I.I. Estoppel’ v grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve [Estoppel in Civil Proceedings].
Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika – Laws of Russia: Experience, Analysis,
Practice, 2015, no. 15, pp. 81–88. (In Russ.)
Denning A.T. Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Consideration. Modern Law
Review, 1952, vol. 15(1), pp. 1–10.
Feltham P. et al. Spencer Bower: Reliance-Based Estoppel: The Law of Reliance-Based
Estoppel and Related Doctrines. 5th ed. Bloomsbury Professional, 2017. 799 p.
Handley K.R. Estoppel by Conduct and Election. 2nd ed. Sweet & Maxwell, 2016.
434 p.
Hogg M.A. Promise: The Neglected Obligation in European Private Law. International
and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2010, vol. 59(2), pp. 461–479.
Hudson J. The Price of Coherence in Estoppels. Sydney Law Review, 2017, vol. 39(1),
pp. 1–23.
Iodkovskii E.V. Resheniia Evropeiskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka v grazhdanskom
sudoproizvodstve: dis. … kand. iurid. nauk [Decisions of the European Court of Human
Rights in Civil Proceedings: Thesis for a Candidate Degree in Law Sciences]. Moscow,
2014. 237 p. (In Russ.)
Koblov A.S. Pravilo estoppel’ v rossiiskom prave: problemy i perspektivy razvitiia [The
Estoppel Rule in Russian Law: Problems and Prospects of Development]. Zakon – Law,
2012, no. 5, pp. 212–219. (In Russ.)
Krasheninnikov E.A. Konstitutsionnoe pravo grazhdan na sudebnuiu zashchitu [Constitutional
Right of Citizens to Judicial Protection]. In Problema zashchity subektivnykh
prav i sovetskoe grazhdanskoe sudoproizvodstvo [The Problem of Protection of Subjective
Rights and Soviet Civil Litigation]. Yaroslavl: Yaroslavl State University Publ., 1981,
pp. 25–43. (In Russ.)
Lobban M. Foakes v. Beer (1884). In Mitchell Ch., Mitchell P. (eds.). Landmark Cases
in the Law of Contract. Hart Publishing, 2016, pp. 223–267.
Malakhirov B.M. Estoppel’ i prekliuziia v tsivilisticheskom protsesse: obshchee i osobennoe
[Estoppel and Preclusio in Civil Procedure: Common and Special]. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii
protsess – Arbitration and Civil Procedure, 2019, no. 10, pp. 3–7. (In Russ.)
Malek H.M. et al. Phipson on Evidence. 19th ed. Sweet & Maxwell, 2017. 1574 p.
McFarlane B. The Law of Proprietary Estoppel. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 2020.
656 p.
McFarlane B. Understanding Equitable Estoppel: From Metaphors to Better Laws.
Current Legal Problems, 2013, vol. 66(1), pp. 267–305.
McFarlane B., Sales P. Promises, Detriment, and Liability: Lessons from Proprietary
Estoppel. Law Quarterly Review, 2015, vol. 131, pp. 610–634.
Nedbailo P.E., Gorshenev V.M. (eds.). Iuridicheskaia protsessual’naia forma: teoriia
i praktika [Legal Procedural Form: Theory and Practice]. Moscow: Iuridicheskaia literatura,
1976. 212 p. (In Russ.)
Ostanina E.A. Estoppel’ i podtverzhdenie sdelki [Estoppel and Confirmation of Transaction].
Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii – Bulletin of the Supreme
Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, 2013, no. 11, pp. 38–45. (In Russ.)
Peel E., Treitel G.H. The Law of Contract. 15th ed. Sweet & Maxwell, 2020. 1388 p.
Puchinskii V.K. Angliiskii grazhdanskii protsess. Osnovnye poniatiia, printsipy i instituty
[English Civil Procedure. Basic Concepts, Principles and Institutes]. Moscow: Peoples’
Friendship University Publishing House, 1974. 186 p. (In Russ.)
Rekhtina I.V. Estoppel v obespechenii pravovoi opredelennosti grazhdanskogo protsessa
sudoproizvodstva Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Estoppel in Ensuring Legal Certainty of Civil
Litigation in the Russian Federation]. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess – Arbitration
and Civil Procedure, 2020, no. 9, pp. 11–15. (In Russ.)
Robertson A. The Form and Substance of Equitable Estoppel. In Robertson A., Goudkamp J.
Form and Substance in the Law of Obligations. Hart Publishing, 2019, pp. 249–274.
Sedova Zh.I. Vidy estoppelia v zarubezhnoi doktrine i vozmozhnosti ikh primeneniia
v razlichnykh otrasliakh prava [Types of Estoppel in Foreign Doctrine and Possibilities
of Their Application in Various Branches of Law]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa
– Herald of Civil Procedure, 2018, no. 4, pp. 41–61. (In Russ.)
Shcheglov V.N. Grazhdanskoe protsessual’noe pravootnoshenie [Civil Procedural
Legal Relations]. Moscow: Iuridicheskaia literatura, 1966. 168 p. (In Russ.)
Treushnikov M.K. Sudebnye dokazatel’stva [Forensic Evidence]. Moscow: Gorodets,
2018. 288 p. (In Russ.)
Tuzov D.O. Ideia nedopustimosti «Venire contra factum proprium» v sviazi s normoi
ob irrelevantnosti zaiavleniia o nedeistvitel’nosti: iuridicheskaia maksima ili printsip?
[The Idea of Inadmissibility of “Venire Contra Factum Proprium” in Connection
with the Rule of Irrelevance of a Declaration of Nullity: A Legal Maxim or Principle?].
Zakon – Law, 2020, no. 4, pp. 47–64. (In Russ.)
Vaskovskii E.V. Izbrannye raboty pol’skogo perioda [Selected Works of the Polish
Period]. Moscow: Statut, 2016. 641 p. (In Russ.)
Virgo G. Whose Conscience? Unconscionability in the Common Law of Obligations.
In Robertson A., Tilbury M. (eds.). Divergences in Private Law. Hart Publishing, 2016,
pp. 293–320.
Volodarskii D.B., Kashkarova I.N. Protsessual’nyi estoppel’ v praktike rossiiskikh sudov
(empiricheskii analiz) [Procedural Estoppel in the Practice of Russian Courts (Empirical
Analysis)]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa – Herald of Civil Procedure, 2019, no. 5,
pp. 61–110. (In Russ.)
Volodarskii D.B., Kashkarova I.N. Protsessual’nyi estoppel’ v sisteme obshchego prava
[Procedural Estoppel in the Common Law System]. Zakon – Law, 2020, no. 4, pp. 189–
204; no. 5, pp. 187–201. (In Russ.)

Information about the author

A.V. Yakhimovich (Moscow, Russia) – Doctoral Candidate, Department of Civil
Procedure, Law Faculty, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Master of Laws, Edinburgh
School of Law, University of Edinburgh (1 Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991,
Russia; e-mail: anton.yakhimovich@gmail.com).

Recommended citation

Yakhimovich A.V. Ob estoppel v rossiiskom grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve: voprosy
teorii i praktiki [Estoppel in the Context of Russian Civil Procedure: Aspects of Theory
and Practice]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa – Herald of Civil Procedure, 2021, vol. 11,
no. 4, pp. 229–252. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24031/2226-0781-2021-11-4-229-252 

 el_.png   it_.png   book.png

Keywords