Elements of a Pallant v Morgan equity

In Baynes Clarke v Corless ([2010] EWCA Civ 338, CA (Eng)) B and C were neighbours. There was a common access road and turning circle leading from the public highway to their property. It was privately owned by the developer of their respective homes. They had a meeting at which they agreed that the access road would be acquired by a management company on behalf of them both. C then bought the access road himself. B claimed that it was held partly in trust for him and invoked the Pallant v Morgan equity. The English Court of Appeal said that this relied on an agreement that one party was to take steps to acquire the relevant property and an agreement that it would be acquired on behalf of both parties. There also had to be an advantage to one party or a detriment to the other. The Court of Appeal held that there had been the necessary agreement (it did not matter that the precise legal mechanism had not been decided on). There had not, however, been any reliance by B. For that reason, the claim failed.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: