Lamare v Dixon: HL 1873

The respondent resisted an order for specific performance of a contract, saying that the plaintiffs had reneged on an essential promise in a collateral contract.
Held: The defence failed. Lord Chelmsford said: ‘The exercise of the jurisdiction of equity as to enforcing the specific performance of agreements, is not a matter of right in the party seeking relief, but of discretion in the Court – not an arbitrary or capricious discretion, but one to be governed as far as possible by fixed rules and principles.’ and ‘The conduct of the party applying for relief is always an important element for consideration’.
References: (1873) LR 6 HL 414
Judges: Lord Chelmsford
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ram, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board Admn 12-Jan-2004
    The claimant had won an action for damages against the respondent. He was however released on licence, and subsequently became unlawfully at large. The question was whether the damages continued to be payable to him. The defendant insisted that the . .
    (, [2004] EWHC 1 (Admin))

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.191983