2014/11/01 by PG Turner · 1 citation
Social Sciences · Economics, Econometrics and Finance · #Legal principles and applications #Legal Issues in South Africa #Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
paper · doi:10.1017/s0008197314000968
openalex publication_date 2014/11/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
THE decision of the Court of Appeal in AB v CD [2014] EWCA Civ 229; [2014] 3 All E.R. 667 concerned a distinctive feature of equity's auxiliary jurisdiction. Unlike situations in which a claimant invokes equity's exclusive jurisdiction to enforce or protect the claimant's purely equitable rights, a claimant seeking equitable relief in aid of his or her legal rights must show that the relief available at common law, if any, would be inadequate to do justice. Thus, a contract party (for example) must cross a threshold before an injunction or specific performance will be granted. Equity's refusal to intervene where adequate relief is available at law properly makes equitable relief in the auxiliary jurisdiction special. The ordinary operation of the law of contract, and that of the courts, could be unjustifiably disrupted if every threatened or actual breach attracted these forms of discretionary equitable relief. But can a contract party tilt the balance of discretion towards the grant (or the refusal) of such relief by relying on a particular term in the contract?