header-logo header-logo

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

A work in progress

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll