Wilkie v Redsell

Parties agreeing to transfer land — Appellant failing to make payments — Respondent commencing proceedings to regain possession of land — Appellant counterclaiming — Judge refusing equitable relief to appellant on “clean hands” basis — Appeal dismissed In 1972, the respondent purchased land that the appellant used for a car-repair business. In 1988, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the appellant was to take an interest in the land upon payment of £30,000. However, the terms of the agreement were unclear and, in the event, the appellant made only one payment of £4,000 to the respondent. The appellant constructed a house on the land and sought to register a caution on the land to protect his interests. The respondent commenced possession proceedings on the ground that the agreement between the parties had been repudiated by the appellant’s non-payment. The appellant counterclaimed and sought specific performance of the agreement. The judge held that, in order to obtain specific performance, the appellant had to show an intention to pay the agreed price, but he found that no such intention existed. Moreover, the appellant had previously been prosecuted for handling stolen vehicles. In those proceedings, he had given evidence dissociating himself from ownership of the land, so that his application for an equitable remedy in respect of the land was not made with “clean hands”. The judge allowed the respondent’s claim for possession and dismissed the appellant’s counterclaim. The appellant appealed. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The judge had been entitled to refuse equitable relief because the appellant had previously attempted to deceive the court as to the nature of his use of the land. Specific performance would be ordered only where the contract could be completed on both sides. The judge had been entitled to find that the defendant had not, and would not, pay the outstanding amount owed to the respondent. Robert Denman (instructed by Dakers Green Brett, of Chatham) appeared for the appellant; Nicholas Baldock (instructed by Berry & Berry, of Tonbridge) appeared for the respondent. Vivienne Lane, barrister