Jones v Lipman
1962 · [1962] 1 WLR 832
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Lipman contracted to sell land to Jones, then changed his mind. To avoid completion he bought a company and transferred the land to it.
- Issue
- Could Jones get though the land was now owned by a company?
- Held
- Yes. Russell J held that the company was a mask and a sham created to avoid the contract. Specific performance was ordered against Lipman and the company.
- Principle
- Equity will not let a person avoid specific performance by a sham transfer to a company he controls.
- Why it matters
- It shows that equity looks to substance, and is also cited in company law on lifting the veil.
Words and Latin in this note
- Specific performance
- An order requiring a party to actually carry out what they promised in a contract, instead of only paying damages. Open the note.
Also on Lanbuk
- Jones v Lipman in Lanbuk on the Law of Companies
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.