Wilkie v Redsell

The appellant was not entitled to specific performance or a proprietary interest in the land because he was neither ready, willing, nor able to pay the purchase price, and his conduct disentitled him from equitable relief. The court also declined to grant a licence to remain, as equity could not be done between the parties without payment and the arrangement would be unworkable.

Parties: Claimant/respondent: Alfred Lewis Wilkie; Defendant/appellant: Stephen Peter Redsell
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 12 June 2003
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bromley County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Specific Performance, Trusts, Proprietary Interests, Clean Hands Doctrine, Equitable Remedies

Land Law Equity Specific Performance Trusts Proprietary Interests Clean Hands Doctrine Equitable Remedies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6

Parties

Alfred Lewis Wilkie

Claimant/respondent

Stephen Peter Redsell

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bromley County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the appellant is entitled to a proprietary interest in the land under trust or specific performance of an oral agreement for sale of land
2 Whether the appellant is entitled to equitable relief given his conduct and inability to pay the purchase price
3 Whether the appellant is entitled to a licence to remain on the land

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Possession of the land granted to Mr Wilkie, effective six weeks from the date of judgment
Appellant to pay costs, amount to be determined by the Costs Judge within three months