Pallant v Morgan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1952 |
| Date | 1952 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Vendor and purchaser - Parol agreement to convey land bought at an auction, if plaintiff abstained from bidding - Failure by defendant to convey - Specific performance - Uncertainty - Fraud on plaintiff.
The agents of two neighbouring landowners agreed in an auction room immediately before an auction sale of land that the plaintiff's agent should refrain from bidding and that the defendant, if his agent was successful, would divide the land according to a formula agreed between the agents, which, however, left certain details to be agreed later. The plaintiff's agent, who had authority to bid up to £2,000, having refrained from bidding, the defendant's agent, who had authority to bid up to £3,000, succeeded in obtaining the property for £1,000, but the parties having failed to agree on those details the defendant retained the whole of the land:—
Held, that the agreement for division was too uncertain to justify an order for specific performance in the plaintiff's favour, but that the defendant was not entitled to retain the property, as that would amount to a fraud on his part, having regard to the agents' agreement in the auction room as to bidding. The true view was that the defendant's agent made his bid on behalf of himself and the plaintiff's agent and that the property was held by the defendant on trust for himself and the plaintiff jointly.
WITNESS ACTION.
The defendant in this action purchased certain land at an auction on September 14, 1950, and the plaintiff (on the ground that, in the circumstances under which the defendant acquired the land, it had been agreed that the defendant should resell to him certain portions of it) claimed specific performance of the agreement; and, alternatively, a declaration that the defendant held the benefit of his contract for the purchase of the property and (if the land comprised therein had been conveyed to him) then the property in trust for himself and the plaintiff jointly; and, if necessary, an order for the sale of the property. He also claimed an injunction restraining the defendant from selling, letting, or otherwise disposing of the property without the consent of the plaintiff.
The facts are fully stated in the judgment.
Raymond Jennings Q.C. and A. J. Belsham for the plaintiff. Even if the plaintiff cannot obtain specific performance of the agreement, the property should be sold and the proceeds of sale be divided equally between the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant having first been repaid the £1,000. The defendant has obtained the property partly as the result of the agreement that the plaintiff should refrain from bidding. Consequently the defendant has obtained an advantage and, if he were allowed to retain lot 16, he would be benefiting from circumstances involving an element of fraud: see Fry on Specific Performance, 6th ed., p. 184, para. 386; see also Chattock v. Muller.F1
Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas Q.C. and E. Blanshard Stamp for the defendant. The plaintiff is not, on the evidence, entitled to succeed in this action. There is a conflict of evidence. The agreement must be unequivocal, and in the present case there were several points which were not definitely settled between the parties. [Counsel referred to Maddison v. Alderson.F2]
Nov. 6. HARMAN J. This is a dispute between neighbours as to certain land adjacent to the properties of each of them and of importance to both from an amenity point of view. The land in question was purchased by the defendant at an auction on September 14, 1950, and the plaintiff's case is that in the circumstances under which the defendant acquired the land he is bound to resell certain portions of it to the plaintiff at a price to be ascertained by way of a formula agreed between their agents for the purpose. Alternatively, the plaintiff claims that the defendant acquired the land on behalf of himself and the plaintiff with the intention of dividing it between them in such manner as they might agree and that, as they have failed to agree, the land is now held by the defendant for himself and the plaintiff jointly.
The plaintiff is the leaseholder of property known as Reeth Cottage near Fernhurst in a pleasant part of the country between Haslemere and Midhurst, forming part of a large estate known as the Blackdown Estate. The defendant is the freeholder of a farm known as Lower House Farm lying to the south of the plaintiff's property. The Blackdown Estate is to a great extent covered by woods which add to the beauty of the countryside, but of course need a considerable amount of maintenance without giving very much financial return.
The estate (or parts of it) was in the market in 1941, and it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alice Kahrmann (as Administrator of the Estate of Rainer Christian Kahrmann) v Hilary Harrison-Morgan
...raised with particular force in relation to an argument for the imposition of a constructive trust based on the principles derived from Pallant v Morgan [1953] Ch 43 and developed in subsequent case law. Not only was a claim of this nature never pleaded, says Hilary, but reliance on it was......
-
Kul Bhushan (1) Vinod Kumar (2) Gurmel Chand (3) Sat Paul (4) v Kahan Chand
...from those businesses or interest in the assets. 136 It is not in the circumstances necessary to go on to consider the cases based on Pallant v Morgan or proprietary estoppel. I would say only that I do not consider the facts would fit easily with Pallant v Morgan since there is no suggesti......
-
John Micheal and Others v Gary Anthony Phillips and Others
...Mr Micheal claims that Mr and Mrs Phillips hold the freehold interest in the building, which they acquired in July 2012, on a Pallant v Morgan constructive trust for him. HRC's status as tenant 74 Mr Micheal has operated his mini-cab businesses from the ground floor of the South Street prem......
-
Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments Ltd
...We have now heard those further submissions. 3 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 arra......
-
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS AND DISCRETION IN AUSTRALIA: TAKING STOCK.
...for the Court). See, eg, ISPT Nominees (n 54) 602 [329]; Ciaglia v Ciaglia (2010) 269 ALR 175, 192 [72] (White J). (56) Pallant v Morgan [1953] 1 Ch 43. See, eg, Comlin Holdings Pty Ltd v Metlej Developments Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 761, [189]-[190] (Parker (57) Re Rose (deceased) [1952] 1 Ch 4......
-
Common law divergences.
...above n 87, 1-2 [1-001], (102) It is appropriate though to mention that what has become known in England as the rule in Pallant v Morgan [1953] Ch 43 seems to be a superfluous invention so far as Australian law is concerned. It has been referred to but, seemingly, never applied here. The ru......
-
Equity and Trust
...result, it was alleged that a constructive trust arose in favour of the plaintiffs based on a Pallant v Morgan equity (see Pallant v Morgan[1953] Ch 43). 12.48 The plaintiffs” action failed as the court disbelieved their allegation that there had been such a common understanding. What is cu......
-
Jorun Baumgartner, Treaty Shopping in International Investment Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016, 354 pp hb £80.00.
...‘Non-contract-based bilateral events’ are involved in thedoctrines in Rochefoucauld vBoustead [1897] 1 Ch 196 (CA) and Pallant vMorgan[1953] Ch 43 (Ch), as well as secret trusts. In all of these cases, although there isno contract to transfer a property, it is said that the reliance by a pr......