An order for specific performance had been refused in a disputed contract for carriage. The claimant argued that normal limitation periods should not be applied by analogy.
Held: Because there was no corresponding legal remedy the remedy in equity was not ‘correspondent to the remedy at law’, and nor did ‘the suit in equity [correspond] with an action at law’. Therefore it would not be correct to import normal limitation rules. The claimant’s appeal succeeded, and the claim should proceed to trial.
Lord Justice Moore-Bick said: ‘For more than two hundred years delay on the part of the claimant has been recognised as a defence to a claim for specific performance, which, like all equitable remedies, is discretionary. Lord Alvanley MR’s words in Milward v Earl Thanet (1801) 5 Ves 720n have passed into Chancery folklore: ‘a party cannot call upon a Court of Equity for specific performance, unless he has shewn himself ready, desirous, prompt, and eager.’ See also Lord Cranworth in Eads v Williams (1854) 4 De GM and G 674 at 691, 43 ER 671 at 678: ‘Specific performance is relief which this Court will not give, unless in cases where the parties seeking it come promptly, and as soon as the nature of the case will permit.’ Any suggestion that a claimant can delay for years in bringing his suit for specific performance is therefore contrary to well-established principle.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Buxton, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker and Lord Justice Moore-Bick
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 1717, Times 15-Jan-2007, [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 231, [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 401
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Knox v Gye HL 1872
A court will, by analogy, apply a statutory limitation period if the remedy in equity, specific performance, is ‘correspondent to the remedy at law’ and where ‘the suit in equity corresponds with an action at law’. Lord Westbury said: ‘For where the . .
Cited – Companhia De Seguros Imperio v Heath (REBX) Ltd and Others CA 20-Jul-2000
Although a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, as a claim in equity, was not subject to the same limitation periods imposed by the Act as claims in tort or contract, a court exercising an equitable jurisdiction should apply similar periods under the . .
See Also – P and O Nedlloyd Bv v Arab Metals Co and others CA 28-Mar-2006
. .
Cited – Milward v Earl Thanet CA 1801
Lord Alvanley MR said: ‘a party cannot call upon a Court of Equity for specific performance, unless he has shewn himself ready, desirous, prompt, and eager.’ . .
Cited by:
Cited – Heath v Kelly and Another ChD 24-Jul-2009
The defendant and the deceased had purchased a house as joint tenants in equity. The claimant sought to enforce an agreement for the sale of the defendant’s half share. Payment having been made. The defendant argued that the agreement was uncertain . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Equity, Limitation
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246993