This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

GDL Law Notes GDL Equity and Trusts Notes

Remedies Notes

Updated Remedies Notes

GDL Equity and Trusts Notes

GDL Equity and Trusts

Approximately 631 pages

A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through many applications from mostly first class students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. You'll notice that we include several different authors' worth of notes. The first is our 2017 author...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Equity and Trusts Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Following equitable remedies:

  1. Specific performance

  2. Injunctive relief

  3. Rescission

  4. Rectification

  5. Account

Originally only available through Courts of Chancery and damages only through common law courts

Common Law Procedure Act 1854: granted common law courts power to grant equitable remedies

Chancery Amendment Act 1858 (now see s50 Senior Courts Act 1981) - gives Courts of Chancery power to award damages in lieu of equitable remedies

Judicature Act 1873: removed the need for claimant to commence claim in the appropriate court

  • Equitable remedies not available as a right – discretion of the courts – exercised on certain settled principles

  • Will only be granted where common law remedy would not remedy the wrong adequately

  • Court will take into account equitable principles - maxims

Specific Performance

  • Requiring a party to carry out his obligations under a contract – can only be sought in respect of positive obligations (negative can seek injunction)

  • Failure to comply: contempt of court – punishable by fine/imprisonment

Damages not adequate

  • Only granted where damages is not adequate remedy

Adderley v Dixon

Not a distinction btw realty and personalty – but because damages may not be a complete remedy

  • Land: ‘damages at law…may not be a complete remedy to the purchaser to whom the land may have a peculiar and special value’

  • Sale of stock/goods: ‘damages at law, calculated upon the market price of the stock or goods contracted for, inasmuch as with the damages, he may purchase the same quality of the like stocks or goods’

Land (realty), including leases:

  • Unique and therefore SP will be ordered on a contract to sell, buy or grant an estate

  • Even though damages would be adequate for the seller/granter – court teats both parties equally so orders SP for either party

Personal Property (pure personalty)

  • Not usually unique so SP won’t normally be granted

If however – the item is unique or identical replacement cannot be obtained – SP can be awarded:

  1. Stocks and shares not available on the market: Duncuft v Albrecht. Such as where they are in a private company – e.g. Oughtred v IRC; Neville v Wilson

  2. Articles of unusual beauty, rarity and distinction – peculiar value to the claimant; Falcke v Gray (Ming vase); Phillips v Lamdin (C purchased property and then found ornate door had been removed)

Contracts for service

  • Difficult to assess adequacy of damages in the same way – hard to classify a service as ‘unique’ – unless there is only 1 person who can perform it – tend to focus on whether losses could be quantified if service isn’t performed

    • E.g. SP of an agreement to provide premises for a National Front annual conference – Verall v Great Yarmouth Borough Council – C could not find replacement and political effects of cancelltion couldn’t be quantified

    • Evans v BBC and IBA interim mandatory injunction granted to compel defendants to screen a party political broadcast for similar reasons

Supervision

  • SP wont be awarded if performance of the contract requires constant supervision by the court

  • Co-operative Insurance v Argyll Stores: covenant to keep the premises open as a supermarket – Lord Hoffmann – ongoing activities – may require ‘indefinite series of rulings’ by the court to ensure order was carried out

    • Only means of enforcement was the quasi-criminal procedure of punishment for contempt

Contracts for personal services

  • S236 Trade Union and Labour relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 – no court shall compel an employee to do any work by way of (a) an order for specific performance or (b) an injunction restraining a breach or threatened breach

  • Cases other than employment where a contract is for services - equitable principles usually prevent SP – but no absolute prohibition

Reasons for refusal to enforce:

  1. Would require constant supervision – c.f. Ryan v Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers Association and Posner v Scott-Lewis

  • Is the contract adequately/clearly defined for the court to supervise it

  • Ryan – landlords covenant in a lease to provide porter services – the only way they could supervise is to be there 24 hours a day

  • Posner – much easier to supervise – turn up on one occasion and see if it has been carried out

  1. Vs. public policy – De Francessco v Barnum – Fry LJ said the courts did not wish to ‘turn contracts of service into contracts of slavery’

  2. If it would lead to imperfections in performance – Megarry J in C.H. Giles & Co. ltd v Morris

  • Example of the opera singer

  • Court very reluctant to give qualitative assessments - especially difficult in artistic pursuits – very subjective

  • Court also unlikely to grant an injunction (either mandatory or prohibitory) if it would have the same effect as SP – Page One Records Ltd v Britton (t/a The Troggs)

Mutuality

  • Availability of specific performance to both parties to a contract relating to land even though damages would be adequate for the seller

  • Mutuality also requires that if specific performance is not available to one party then it cannot be available to the other:

  1. As specific performance will not be awarded vs. a minor – he cannot obtain such an order himself – Lumley v Ravenscroft

  2. As a person will not be ordered to carry out an employment contract; he cannot obtain specific performance vs. the employer

Mistake

  • Although a contract is only rarely declared void for mistake – a court can sometimes refuse to order the mistaken party to carry out the contract – leaving the remedy of damages for the other party

“Clean hands”

  • You must come to court with clean hands when trying to obtain SP – cannot obtain an equitable remedy if you have acted unconscionably

  • Claimant must have performed, or be willing to perform at the proper time, all his own obligations under the contract - e.g. Coatsworth v Johnson – where SP of a contract to grant a lease was refused as the tenant was In breach of the lease’s requirement to cultivate the farm in a ‘good and husband like manner’

Delay or Laches

  • No statutory limitation period for...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Equity and Trusts Notes.

More GDL Equity And Trusts Samples