header-logo header-logo

A work in progress

24 June 2016 / Jonathan Fowles
Issue: 7704 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail
nlj_7704_fowles

The Pallant v Morgan equity is a generator of uncertainty, says Jonathan Fowles

  • The Pallant v Morgan equity in its current form is arguably an unwelcome intrusion by equity into commercial affairs.
  • The High Court has recently confirmed that parties cannot exclude it simply by the use of the phrase “subject to contract”.

The precise scope and nature of the so-called Pallant v Morgan equity is still being worked out by the courts. A recent High Court decision ( Generator Developments LLP v Lidl [2016] EWHC 814 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 164 (Apr)) illustrates the uncertainty which the background threat of such an equity may cause in commercial transactions, and underscores the difficulty of setting its boundaries, even aside from debate as to its juridical justification.

Pre-requisites of the equity

The equity distinctively arises out of joint venture relationships in relation to the acquisition of real property. It depends on a pre-acquisition arrangement between the parties to the joint venture “which colours the subsequent acquisition by the defendant and leads to his being

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll