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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll