Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK,LORD JUSTICE EVANS |
| Judgment Date | 30 March 2000 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] EWCA Civ J0330-5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | No CHANF 1998/0988/A3 |
| Date | 30 March 2000 |
[2000] EWCA Civ J0330-5
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith
Lord Justice Evans
Lord Justice Chadwick
No CHANF 1998/0988/A3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM ORDER OF MR JUSTICE BLACKBURNE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
MR CHARLES PURLE QC and MR MARK WARWICK (Instructed by Titmus Sainer Dechert of London) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR J BRISBY QC and MR P McGRATH and MR R MILLETT (Instructed by Leboeuf Lamb Greene of London) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
LORD JUSTICE STUART SMITH: I will ask Lord Justice Chadwick to give the first judgment.
: In the final paragraph of the judgment delivered on 28th January 2000 I indicated that it was my view that the appropriate order on the present appeal was that sought in the notice of appeal; namely that the shares in Stowhelm are held, as to one half, upon trust for Banner. But I indicated, also, that I thought it right that the parties should have the opportunity to address further submissions to the Court on that question. We have now heard those further submissions.
As I sought to show in the judgment of 28th January 2000, what I there described as the Pallant v Morgan equity is invoked where it would be inequitable to allow the defendant to treat as his own property acquired in furtherance of a prior arrangement or understanding that the claimant should have some interest in that property. In the present appeal, that condition would have been satisfied if the site had been acquired by Luff in its own name, or in the name of a nominee. The condition would, for example, have been satisfied if, when Stowhelm acquired the site in November 1995, it had done so as nominee or trustee for Luff. But, in relation to the site, that condition is not satisfied in the circumstances where Stowhelm acquired that property as its own asset. The reason is that it is not inequitable to allow Stowhelm to treat as its own property which, under the prior arrangement between Banner and Luff, it was always contemplated and intended that Stowhelm should acquire as its own asset. Further, in the circumstances that the site was not acquired by Luff, either as legal or as beneficial owner, it is impossible to treat Luff as trustee of the site for Banner.
But the condition is satisfied in relation to Luff's acquisition, in July 1995, of the then issued shares in Stowhelm, and in relation to the issue to Luff (or to any nominee for Luff) of any further shares in Stowhelm. It was contemplated under the arrangement or understanding reached between Banner and Luff prior to the acquisition of those shares that shares in a company would be acquired for the purpose of the joint venture; that is to say, that the site itself would be acquired by a single venture company acquired for that purpose in which the shares would be held for Banner and Luff. The shares in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crossco No.4 Unlimited and Others v Jolan Ltd and Others
...jurisprudential basis of what has become known as "the Pallant v Morgan equity", considered by the Court of Appeal in Banner Homes Group Ltd v Luff Developments Ltd [2000] Ch 372 , the factual framework, and particularly the Judge's factual findings, inevitably lead to the failure of the......
-
John Micheal and Others v Gary Anthony Phillips and Others
...93 A fuller consideration of the requirements of the constructive trust arising out of such an arrangement was given by Chadwick LJ in Banner Homes v Luff [2000] Ch 372 at 397–399: "(1) A Pallant v Morgan equity may arise where the arrangement or understanding on which it is based precedes ......
-
Shiel v McKeon
...DEFENDANT PALLANT v MORGAN 1953 CH 43 FRY ON SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE CHATTOCK v MULLER 8 CH 177 BANNER HOMES PLC v LUFF DEVELOPMENTS LTD 2000 CH 372 MCGILLICUDDY v JOY 1959 IR 189 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Land Law Contract Enforceability - Informal arrangement -Trust - Equitable relief - Failure ......
-
Ong Heng Chuan & Another v Ong Boon Chuan & Another
...arise. 6. The Plaintiffs’ argument on constructive trust is based on what was described in Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments Ltd [2000] Ch 372 as "Pallant v Morgan equity". Chadwick LJ "The equity is invoked where the defendant has acquired property in circumstances where it would ......
-
Is There Still Scope For Successful Claims In Respect Of Unsuccessful Negotiations? Generator Developments LLP And Lidl UK GMBH (2016)
...to share the property. Since then a number of cases have developed the equity. Most notably in Banner Homes Plc v Luff Developments Ltd [2000] Ch 372, CA. Banner and Luff made an oral agreement, evidenced in writing to form a joint venture company. The joint venture company would acquire an......
-
Common law divergences.
...(Unreported, Court of Chancery, Megarry J, 19 December 1969), as quoted by Chadwick LJ in Banner Homes Group Pic v Luff Developments Ltd [2000] Ch 372, 391, is if A and B agree that A will acquire some specific property for the joint benefit of A and B on terms yet to be agreed and B in rel......
-
Equity and Trust
...elements of a contractual agreement appear to be in place and as observed by Chadwick LJ in Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments Ltd[2000] Ch 372 at 400, in a passage quoted by the learned judge: [A Pallant v Morgan equity] is invoked because there is no bargain which is capable of be......
-
Chapter 60, HB 659 – An act relating to the Florida Statutes; amending ss. 11.513, 17.26, 20.12, 20.315, 20.3315, 20.50, 24.113, 39.0015, 39.202, 39.3065, 55.209, 101.545, 110.112, 121.021, 121.051, 125.0108, 163.065, 163.2517, 163.345, 163.458, 166.231, 171.093, 186.504, 192.001, and 212.08, F.S.; renumbering s. 20.171(5)(c),...
...are no longer necessary. Paragraphs (5)(n) and (o) are amended to clarify references to local building code inspectors to conform with ch. 2000-372, Laws of Florida. Paragraph (7)(ff) is amended to delete material setting sales tax exemption percentages for certain electricity or steam uses......