Auld LJ said of Crabb: there ‘could be no doubt as to the nature and extent of the remedy required to give effect to [the] equity’. Of JT Developments ‘the nature and terms of the equity were readily identifiable’. Auld LJ said: ‘There may be uncertainties in transactions which go to the question whether unconscionable behaviour has given rise to any detriment to the party seeking to rely on such an equity. There may be uncertainties in transactions in which unconscionable behaviour may have produced such detriment but its nature and extent are so uncertain that even equity may not be able to devise an appropriate remedy for it. There are parts that sometimes even equity cannot reach; and sometimes, as here, the two aspects of uncertainty may overlap.’
Chadwick LJ: ‘I am unable to recognise an equitable estoppel based on a representation which is so uncertain. It seems to me essential, if the respondent is to be prevented from exercising a clear legal right unless he first satisfies some condition which is to be imposed on him to meet by what is described as ‘the equity of the case’, that it should be possible to tell him what it is that he has to do. To fetter the respondent’s legal right by reference to some obligation which cannot be spelt out seems to me to be thoroughly inequitable.’
References: (1999) 77 P and CR D42
Judges: Auld LJ
This case cites:
- Cited – Crabb v Arun District Council CA 23-Jul-1975
The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .
([1976] Ch 179, , [1975] 3 All ER 865, [1975] EWCA Civ 7) - Cited – JT Developments v Quinn and Another CA 1990
The plaintiff told the defendant it was willing to grant a lease on the same terms as those contained in a new tenancy that the plaintiff had recently granted to the tenant of a nearby shop, also owned by the plaintiff. The defendant carried out . .
([1991] 2 EGLR 257, (1990) 62 P and CR 33)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Parker v Parker ChD 24-Jul-2003
Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time.
Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable . .
(, [2003] EWHC 1846 (Ch))
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192085