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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
In NLJ this week, Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre marks Pro Bono Week by urging lawyers to recognise the emotional toll of pro bono work
Can a lease legally last only days—or even hours? Professor Mark Pawlowski of the University of Greenwich explores the question in this week's NLJ
RFC Seraing v FIFA, in which the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) reaffirmed that awards by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be reviewed by EU courts on public-policy grounds, is under examination in this week's NLJ by Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law, Zurich
back-to-top-scroll