Years ago, while attending a moot court competition as a law student, our imaginary client was in dire need of a solid argument. Our side had been factually and legally cornered, a commonplace situation in the renowned Jessup Moot. In our search for help, our professor and advisor refrained from direct guidance, rather, cryptically suggested we explore the concept of “estoppel”. “Check Temple of Preah Vihear – or what McNair had to comment,” he proposed.
The notion of ‘estoppel’, for those unfamiliar, is an essential principle in law that prevents an individual from denying the truth of a fact which has been settled by judicial decision or by the parties themselves. With this in mind, we turned to investigate the Temple of Preah Vihear case, in addition to delving into the perspectives of McNair.
This narrative is not merely a recounting of my law school experiences, but also serves as an introduction to the broader discussion on the relevance of estoppel and its instrumental role in arbitration cases, as in the instance of the recent Chagos arbitration. Estoppel continues to be a tool of considerable value in legal discourse, indicating its enduring relevance from the moot court classrooms to the real-world courtrooms.
For a more detailed analysis of the Chagos Arbitration, kindly visit The Chagos Arbitration: An Education in Estoppel article by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. This article provides a more in-depth exploration of the topic, underscoring the ongoing importance and application of estoppel in legal practice.