The appellants appealed a trial judgment that declared a mortgage null and void based on promissory estoppel.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that promissory estoppel can only be used as a shield, not a sword, and the respondent had improperly used it to seek a declaration.
The Court set aside the judgment and ordered a new trial to determine whether there was consideration for the mortgage, as the trial judge had failed to make a finding on that issue.
