Prior to the majority judgement in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1987) 164 CLR 387, it was generally accepted that equitable estoppel consisted of two separate doctrines, promissory and proprietary estoppel. However, the majority judgement in Walton Stores fused proprietary and promissory estoppel into a single doctrine, „equitable estoppel‟. Whether this unified doctrine of equitable estoppel still operates as Australian law today is subject to debate. Patrick Parkinson asserts that „a single doctrine of equitable estoppel‟ was „established from the majority judgments in Waltons Stores (Interstate) v Maher‟,1and this represents the law of equitable estoppel in today‟s Australia. However is still strong opposition to a unified doctrine of equitable estoppel and Young, Croft and Smith, On Equity (Lawbook Co: 2009) refer to it as„heresy‟ and that it „has now been jettisoned‟.2 These statements in opposition of a single doctrine are unfounded and not appear to conform with High Court decisions on the issue, further the reluctance for accepting a unified doctrine tends to be based more on hypothetical issues rather then any actual problems