Equitable remedies Summary notes- Equity and Trusts
4 views 0 purchase
Course
Law of Trusts (LX2083)
Institution
Brunel University (BU)
Book
The Principles of Equity & Trusts
These are notes on equitable remedies created in 2019. They follow a structured format which condenses the relevant case law, statutory provisions and academic opinion that are relevant to the topic to aid with exam revision.
Equitable remedies Posner v Scott – Specific performance was allowed as no
great hardship was forced on the defendant
Defintion: Co-operative Insurance Society v Argyll- Defendant
Are orders compelling the defendant to do something or promised to keep supermarket open but then broke the
refrain from doing something lease 19 years early, Claimant wanted specific
performance to enforce the contract. Specific
General information: performance was not awarded as it would be too
burdensome on the claimant to supervise the
Co-operative Insurance Society v Argyll- Equitable enforcement of the contract.
remedies are flexible and adaptable to achieve the ends
of equity Defences to specific performance:
Wilson v Northampton- Purpose of equitable relief is to
do more perfect and complete justice than if the parties Mistake and misrepresentation:
went for remedies at common law Falke v Gray- Unfair result, if the judge forces specific
Equitable remedies will come into play performance it would make an unfair result
To support and enhance the common law and to Lamare v Dixon- Conduct of the claimant, a refusal to
enforce equitable obligations perform a promise
Public policy:
Three types: Tito v Waddell- Hardship
Patel v Ali- Exceptional personal distress if specific
Specific performance performance is granted
Injunctions
Equitable damages Injunctions
General principles:
They are discretionary whilst common law remedies are Definition:
sought as of a right An order to prevent action that would breach a
Only available when common law remedies are duty/contract or to compel an action to rectify such
inadequate breach
Equity acts in personam (affects the individual) and the Statutory basis: s.37(1) Supreme Court Act 1981
conscience of the individual to which it is applied Paton v Trustees- Husband tried to get an injunction to
Equity does not act in vain and always has a purpose prevent his wife from aborting their child but hand no
Haywood v Cope- Whilst it is equitable, there must be right at law or equity to do so
some settled rule on how discretion must be exercised Equity is about the conscience of the defendant in
(now outdated after the juridicature acts) personam
Specific performance: Has the potential to have a wide scope
Unnamed defendants:
Co-operative Insurance v Argyll- Specific performance is Bloomsbury v News Group- Individuals wanted to sell
an exceptional remedy as opposed to common law unreleased Harry Potter manuscripts to newspapers but
damages which is more of a right an injunction was placed to prevent newspapers from
publishing them
Is only allowed where: Venables v News Group- An injunction was created
against the world to prevent anyone from publishing the
The contract already exists- because equity will not
assist a volunteer identities of the killers of Jamie Bulger
Some requirement in the contract is yet to be 3 main types:
performed
Damages are inadequate Prohibitory injunctions- Preventing the defendant from
Property under the agreement is unique acting in a particular way- Doherty v Allman
Sudbrook Trading v Eggleton- For the sale of land, Mandatory injunctions- requiring the defendant to actin
specific performance is a normal remedy unless there a particular way until the trial. Redland Bricks v Morris
are special factors preventing it and Wrotham v Parkside
Verall v Great Yarmouth- Contract was specifically Quia timet injunctions- Translates to he fears, an action
enforceable, as damages were not adequate for either an injunction or damages awarded to the
-For the sale of chattels, specific performance is not plaintiff prior to him/her suffering any actual loss but
generally a remedy unless there is no substitute. harm is threatened
Behnke v Bede- Specific performance was awarded
because the goods in question were unique and could Injunctions are not available in these scenarios:
not be replaced When damages are sufficient
Cohen v Roche- Specific performance was denied as the Acquiescence/delay- in terms of breach
goods weren’t unique, the claimant could buy them No useful purpose served
elsewhere, so damages were awarded Undue hardship
Wheatley v Westminister- Courts will not force Trivial infringement
someone to supervise the completion of a contract- like Public policy
the construction of a railway. Better remedy is to award
damages Equitable damages:
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller BigH. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.01. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
