Equitable Remedies

Haywood v Cope (1858)

Romilly LJ: discretion is exercised according to ‘fixed and settled rules’

1 of 67

Cohen v Roche (1927)

SP will not be granted if damages would adequately compensate C; here, contract re set of commonplace chairs- C had to make do with damages (This is because, each piece of land is considered unique (Mungalsingh v Juman (2015))

2 of 67

Hasham v Zenab (1960)

Action for SP may commence before actual breach of contract; e.g. re anticipatory breach, where one party states that he will not perform the contract (Spiro v Glencrown Properties (1991))

3 of 67

United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib (1996)

Also applies re creating interests such as a legal or equitable mortgage

4 of 67

Verrall v Great Yarmouth Borough Council (1981)

SP also available re use of land; here, hiring the hall, Council then attempted to revoke their licence – SP applied

5 of 67

Behnke v Bede Shipping (1927)

However, rule gives way when goods are unique; here, unique ship of peculiar value to buyer, structurally altered to meet buyer’s needs; held: SP granted as it would have taken 2 years to convert another ship

6 of 67

Sky Petroleum v VIP Petroleum (1974)

Also gives way where spec circums make payment of damages inadequate; here, sale of petrol at time of world shortage and there no other source available; SP compelled seller to complete sale

7 of 67

Wroth v Tyler (1974)

Here, SP refused as it would otherwise cause a husband to sue a wife with whom he was still residing

8 of 67

Verrall v Great Yarmouth (1981)

However, SP may be available to enforce contractual licenses where damages are an inadequate remedy

9 of 67

Wheately v Westminster Brymbo Coal (1869)

Malins VC: courts will not undertake either the construction of a railway, the management of a brewery, or t5he management of a colliery, or anything of the kind

10 of 67

Ryan v Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers Association (1893)

E.g. contract to provide porterage in a block of flats

11 of 67

Alfa Finance Holdings v Quarzwerke (2015)

No SP re provisions which are otherwise insuffy imprecise to form the subj matter of a SP; because, it ran contrary to principle and practice to make order in form which left def in doubt as to what is to be done or not done in order to ensure compli

12 of 67

Wolverhampton v Emmons (1901)

However, contracts to build can be specy enforced provided construction contract suffy defines work to be carried out, damages would be inadequate and the builder has already taken possession of the land on which the work is to be carried out

13 of 67

Posner v Scott-Lewis [1987]

Here, landlord covenanted to employ resident porter for cleaning and heating block of flats; little supervision would be needed as their duties were defined; no great hardshiop would be incurred by landlord; SP granted

14 of 67

Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores Holdings Ltd [1997]

• Lord Hoffmann: would not be possible to draw up order with sufficient precision to avoid wasteful litigation; thus, performance of covt would require constant supervision

15 of 67

Rigby v Connol (1878)

E.g. an agreement by an actor to appear in a play

16 of 67

De Francesco v Barnum (1890)

Hence, there can be no SP to compel employee to work – Fry LJ: the courts must not ‘turn contracts of service into contracts of slavery’

17 of 67

Ashworth v Royal National Theatre (2014)

Held: such remedies should not be available to require an employer who has wrongfully dismissed employees to take them back

18 of 67

South African Territories v Wallington (1898)

Because: damages are clearly an adequate remedy

19 of 67

Beswick v Beswick (1968)

However, HL departed from this trad restriction and awarded SP of a contract whereby, in return for a transfer of a business, the transferee was to pay the transferor’s widoe sum of £5 per week for life

20 of 67

Keay v Morris Homes (2012)

E.g. where contract for grant of interest in land has not been made in writing as required by LP(MP)A 1989, s 2; Thus, in writing, contain all express terms and signed

21 of 67

Walker v Boyle (1982)

Any misrep by plaintiff to def, whether innocent or fraudulent, which would entitle def to rescind contract, will be a defence to SP

22 of 67

Bashir v Ali (2011)

where def has made a mistake, which does not prevent formation of contract, generally be no defence to SP

23 of 67

Tamplin v James (1880)

however, court may refuse SP where order would cause def ‘a hardship amounting to injustice’

24 of 67

Webster v Cecil (1861)

def vendor offered to sell land for £1,250 by mistake instead of £2,250; plaintiff purchaser must have known mistake as earlier def refused to sell for £2,000; accepted by post; def realised mistake and immediately told plaintiff; court refused SP

25 of 67

Flight v Booth (1834)

If property has been misdescribed in contract for sale, def will be entitled to rescind contract

26 of 67

Madeley v Booth (1848)

E.g. if contract was for grant of a lease, the purchaser would not be compelled to take an underlease

27 of 67

Re Brine and Davies’ Contract (1935)

E.g. if contract was for sale of ‘registered freehold property’ purchaser would not be compelled to take merely possessory title

28 of 67

Scott v Hanson (1829)

E.g. here, contract for sale of 14 acres of water meadow, but only 12 could be so described

29 of 67

Lazard Bros v Fairfield Properties (1977)

Although no statutory time limit to a claim for SP, the claimiant must not delay unduly because SP will not be ordered if, in view of the delay, it would be unjust to either of the parties

30 of 67

Huxham v Llewellyn (1873)

Length of delay itself is not decisive factor – here, 5 month delay prevented SP

31 of 67

Williams v Greatrex (1957)

However, here, SP granted after 10-year delay because all that was involved was completion of the formal tramsfer of land to a purchaser already in possession

32 of 67

Patel v Ali (1984)

the hardship would be uprooting the wife and her children from the house where she was living nearby her sister who supported her, in a close neighbourhood, whilst she was ill and lacking money

33 of 67

Flight v Bollard (1821)

Where SP is not available to the other party; e.g. here, one party was below the age of majority

34 of 67

Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association Ltd v British Celanese Ltd [1953]

if A proves that his proprietary rights are being wrongfully interfered with by B, and that he intends to continue his wrong, then A is prima facie entitled to an injunction, and he will be deprived of that remedy only if special circumstances exist

35 of 67

Jackson v Normanby Brick (1899)

uncommon, but when granted, should be worded in pos terms

36 of 67

Redland Bricks v Morris (1970)

Quia timet injunctions: designed to prevent anticipatory infringement of claimant’s rights where an infringement is a realistic threat; here, anticipated damage from land slippage

37 of 67

Supreme Court Act 1981, s 37(1)

 HC may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction in all cases where the court feels it is just and convenient to do so

38 of 67

London and Blackwall Rly v Cross (1886)

An injunction will only be awarded if damages would prove an inadequate remedy (Hodgson v Duce (1856))

39 of 67

Paton v British Pregnancy Advisory Services Trustees (1979)

There must be a legal right enforceable in law or in equity before the applicant can obtain an injunction from the court to retsrain an infringement of that right

40 of 67

Day v Brownrigg (1878)

CA refused injunction restraining def from giving house same name as that if plaintiff, his next door neighbour, as this did not infringe any of the plaintiff’s legal or equitable rights

41 of 67

Fox v Fox (1870)

Injunction to restrain trustees from committing a breach of trust

42 of 67

Wakeham v Wood (1982)

Injunction to enforce a restrictive covt over land; here, MI required def to demolish building obstructing sea view from plaintiff’s house, contrary to restrictive covt

43 of 67

Lord Ashburton v Pape (1913)

Injunctions can be granted to prevent disclosure of confidential info even if the info is not protected by patent or copyright laws

44 of 67

Campbell v MGN (2004)

HL: duty of confidence arises wherever a person receives info he knows or ought to know is fairly and reasonably to be regarded as confidential

45 of 67

Duchess of Argyll v Duke of Argyll (1967)

Here, injunction granted to prevent plaintiff publishing details of her marriage to the def

46 of 67

Mosley v News Group Newspapers (2008)

Things can only be confidential if not in public domain

47 of 67

Doherty v Allman (1878)

Lord Cairns: re neg covts: it is not q’n of balance of convenience or inconvencience, or of amount of damage or injury, it is the SP of that neg bargain which the parties have made, with their eyes open, between themselves

48 of 67

Rochdale Canal v King (1851)

Fact that claimant has only suffered nominal or very small damage from infringement of his right does not prevent court awarding an injunction

49 of 67

Behrens v Richards (1905)

Here, Buckley J refused injunction against defs who were trespassing on plaintiff’s land as their use of path caused no damage

50 of 67

Patel v WH Smith (Eziot) (1987)

However, more strict approach: here, CA: only in rare cases would an injunction be refused to restrain a continuing trespass

51 of 67

Redland Bricks v Morris (1970)

Although, def’s conduct is factor to consider; wanton and unreasonable acts may even justify MI despite disprop value of cost

52 of 67

Wrotham Park Estate v Parkside Homes [1974]

Here, Brightman J refused MI requiring demolition of houses built in contravention of rest covt as it would be ‘an unpardonable waste of much needed houses’

53 of 67

South Bucks District Council v Porter (2003)

there is not one law for the law-abiding and another for the lawless

54 of 67

H P Bulmer and Showerings v J Bollinger (1977)

Court may refuse injunction if C has delayed for inordinate time

55 of 67

Parrott v Palmer (1834)

there will be no injunction if the claimant has acquiesced and waived his rights

56 of 67

Fisher v Brooker (2009)

For delay to justify denial of equitable relief, some sort of detrimental reliance would usually be needed

57 of 67

Chancery Amendment Act 1858 (Lord Cairns’ Act)

court has jurisdiction to award damages in substitution for award of injunction

58 of 67

Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting (1895)

Injury to claimant’s legal right is small, and; the loss can be valued in money terms, and; money would provide the claimant with adequate compensation, and; an injunction would be oppressive, unduly harsh or disprop

59 of 67

Jaggard v Sawyer (1995)

Although it was applied here re trespass, Millet LJ: it provided ‘only a working rule and does not purport to be an exhaustive statement of th circums in which damages may be awarded instead of an injunction’

60 of 67

Pilford v Greenmanor (2012)

 Other factors to consider, e.g. delay in bringing an action, or a willingness in pre-trial correspondence to accept financial compensation (Gafford v Graham (1999))

61 of 67

Lawrence v Fen Tigers (2014)

Lord Neuberger: important factor= public interest; the court should consider such matters as how many people are adversely affected by the activity complained of, and also to the positive effects of the activity, e.g. providing employment or leisure

62 of 67

Lawrence v Fen Tigers (2014)

Shelfer guidelines criticised as too prescriptive;  Here, criticised as out-of-date and followed slavishly by courts (Coventry v Lawrence (2014)

63 of 67

Johnson v Agnew (1980)

HL: where damages would have been available at common law, court only possessed jurisdiction to award damages on same compensatory basis

64 of 67

Wrotham Park Estate v Parkside Homes (1974)

Nevertheless, substantial damages awarded equivalent to sum of moneyt that might reasonably have been demanded by plaintiffs for relaxing restrictive covt (sometimes called damages for loss of a bargaining opportunity) Surrey CC v Bredero Homes (1993

65 of 67

HTC v Nokia (2013)

Sig diff= in equity, where damages are awarded in lieu of injunction, they can compensate for future as well as for past losses

66 of 67

A-G v Blake (2000)

Lord Nicholls: although Lord Cairns’ Act did not alter the measure to be employed in assessing damages, it did enable the court to award damages re future as well as the past, so that damages awarded in lieu of injunction could include losses likely

67 of 67

Get Revising

Equitable Remedies

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources: