Trusts-Equitable Remedies

Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores Ltd

Authority for Specific Performance

facts: Argyll Stores leased a supermarket unit under a long lease containing a covenant to keep the store open for retail trade. They closed the store because it was losing money. The landlord (Co-operative Insurance Society) sought specific performance of the covenant.

held: The House of Lords refused specific performance.

1. They emphasised that ordering a business to continue trading at a loss would impose onerous supervision, be oppressive on the defendant, and that damages were an adequate remedy.

Principle:

1. Specific performance is a discretionary remedy

2. will not be ordered in matters where:

   1. constant supervision will be required

   2. damages are adequate

   3. the order would be unfair or unrealistic or contrary to public interest

beswick v beswick

specific performance

facts: An uncle transferred his business to his nephew in return for the nephew’s promise to pay the uncle’s widow an annuity after his death. The nephew failed to pay. The widow could not sue in contract because she was not a party to it.

held:  awarded specific performance, compelling the nephew to pay the widow her annuity. The remedy was granted because damages alone would be inadequate for her.

principle:

SP may be ordered where damages are inadequate and the contractual obligations are just & necessary

jaggard v sawyer

facts:

A group of neighbours anticipated that a brewery intended to close a local pub. They forcibly changed the locks in an attempt to prevent closure.

held: An injunction was granted to restrain the defendants from interfering with the brewery’s rights, underscoring the equitable principle that injunctions prevent imminent wrongs

principle: Courts may grant injunctions to restrain threatened wrongful acts that would cause irreparable harm.

American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd

facts: C sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain E from marketing an allegedly infringing product pending trial

principle: test for interim injunction

1. There must be a serious issue to be tried. This will be established unless the claim is completely frivolous or vexatious.

2. The court should then consider whether the claimant, if successful at trial, would be adequately compensated by damages if no interim injunction is made. If damages would be adequate, ordinarily no injunction should be granted.

3. If the answer to (2) is yes, the court should consider whether the defendant, if successful at trial, would be adequately compensated by damages if an interim injunction is made.

4. If either of the two previous issues are ambiguous, the court should consider where the balance of convenience lies.

freezing injunction

authority: Mareva

principle: if it appears that D would frustrate the judgement of the court, the court has jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory judgement to prevent disposal of assets or otherwise

Marley v Rawlings [2014] UKSC 2, [2015] AC 129

facts: A couple signed each other’s wills by mistake. The question was whether equitable rectification could correct the mutual mistake.

held: The Supreme Court allowed rectification of the wills to give effect to the parties’ actual intentions.

principle: Equity can rectify documents where they fail to reflect the true intention of the parties due to a common mistake.

Porter & Anor v Stokes (Trinidad and Tobago) [2023] UKPC 11

Specific performance in land

facts: A dispute over a land sale where the buyers claimed they had fulfilled the contract, but the sellers refused to transfer the title.

held: SP granted.

principle:

1. Specific performance is the primary remedy for land contracts because land is "unique."

   1. As long as the claimant is "ready, willing, and able" to perform their core obligations, equity will generally enforce the sale to prevent the seller from unfairly backing out.

somani hotels v epping forest district

An injunction is a discretionary equitable remedy.

The court held that public protest is not a "planning harm" and should not be used to justify an injunction, as doing so "incentivises protest" to achieve legal outcomes. The court must balance the "wider picture"—the national need for asylum accommodation—against local planning concerns

Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47

facts: Over 38 local authorities sought wide-ranging injunctions against "persons unknown" (newcomers) to prevent unauthorized encampments by Gypsy and Traveller communities on public land. At the time of the application, many of these individuals had not yet trespasssed or threatened to do so.

held: the Supreme Court unanimously held that the court does have this power.

principle:

1. Equity provides remedies where the common law is inadequate (e.g., where wrongdoers are anonymous or transitory).

2. Such injunctions are "contra mundum" (against the world) but must be used as a last resort.

3. They require strict safeguards:

   1. they must be time-limited (usually one year),

   2. geographically limited, and

   3. the applicant must fulfill a "stringent duty" of disclosure to protect the rights of those not present.

Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] AC 822

principle: Courts have broad discretion.

If an injunction would be oppressive to the defendant or against the public interest, equitable damages under may be the more appropriate remedy.

National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers & Anor v Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive (t/a Nexus) [2024] UKSC 37

facts: A drafting error in a formal letter (intended to incorporate a pay deal) meant that employees were technically entitled to a massive, unintended pay rise. Nexus sought rectification to fix the mistake. The Union argued that because the letter was part of a statutory process, equity couldn't "rewrite" it.

held: rectification allowed by SC

Principle:

equity’s power to correct mistakes (rectification) is not barred just because a document has statutory consequences.

1. If there is "convincing proof" that the document doesn't reflect the parties' actual agreement, equity will step in to prevent an unconscionable result.

Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] AC 822

Damages in Lieu (instead) of an injunction

facts: Residents sued a nearby motor-sports stadium for noise nuisance. The stadium had planning permission.

principle: Courts have broad discretion.

If an injunction would be oppressive to the defendant or against the public interest, equitable damages under may be the more appropriate remedy.

shelfer test

Damages in Lieu (instead) of an injunction

Damages may be substituted for an injunction only if all four conditions are satisfied:

1. The injury to the claimant’s legal rights is small

2. The injury is capable of being estimated in money

3. The injury can be adequately compensated by a small money payment

4. It would be oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction