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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll