No, I don’t think so. I’m not a UK lawyer but to the extent I understand English law, promissory estoppel in the US is different. You will see some people compare promissory estoppel in the United States to a sword but compare promissory estoppel in England to a shield. Possibly, and I’m not sure, the English principle that a court will enforce a gratuitous promise in a deed is closer to the US doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Scholars in the US originally called promissory estoppel a “Promise Reasonably Inducing Definite and Substantial Action.” If there is a promise, an action in reliance on the promise, a reasonable expectation that the person would rely on the promise, then the promise can be the basis for a lawsuit.
For example, let’s say A promises B, “I’ll pay you $100,000 because I like you.” This is not a contract. If A doesn’t pay, B won’t win a lawsuit for breach of contract because there was no consideration. But let’s say B quits her job. And under the circumstances A should have reasonably expected that B would quit her job based on his promise. B could sue based on promissory estoppel and she might recover some money she lost as a result of quitting her job.
As I understand English law a party can raise a defense based on promissory estoppel but can’t initiate a lawsuit. A makes a promise to B and B relies on the promise. A then breaks his promise and sues B. B can raise promissory estoppel as a defense against the lawsuit if A’s lawsuit results from A breaking the promise on which B relied.
For example, landlord promises tenant, “I won’t raise your rent for the next few years.” Tenant relies on that promise. Landlord breaks his promise and raises the rent. Tenant refuses to pay the higher rent and landlord sues. Even if there was no consideration for landlord’s promise, tenant can raise a defense based on landlord’s promise to not raise rent.