Equitable estoppel is a doctrine that prevents a party from going back on a representation or assurance where it would be unconscionable to allow them to do so, because another party has reasonably relied on that assurance to their detriment. In practice, it is often invoked in contract, property, commercial and litigation contexts where strict legal rights conflict with fairness.In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, it is principally a creature of case law, including proprietary estoppel and promissory estoppel, and is grounded in equity’s control over the enforcement of legal rights. Key features usually include: a clear representation or promise, reliance, detriment, and unconscionability. It may operate as a “shield not a sword”, limiting enforcement of rights, though proprietary estoppel can also generate positive remedies.In Scotland, similar outcomes are reached through doctrines such as personal bar and the broad equitable jurisdiction of the courts, rather than “equitable estoppel” as a formal label. In Ireland, the case law recognises promissory and proprietary estoppel along similar lines to England and Wales, with flexibility in tailoring remedies to achieve justice between the parties.

This Practice Note introduces equitable execution and summarises procedure to be followed when seeking an order for appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution. What is equitable execution? Equitable execution involves the court appointing a receiver to collect income derived from assets of a judgment debtor. The receiver effectively manages the income from the debtor’s assets and makes payment(s) to a judgment creditor in order to discharge the judgment debt without any entitlement of the creditor to the asset itself. It is important to be aware that this is a different type of receiver to those encountered in insolvency. Equitable execution is not an insolvency process and the creditor does not receive a proprietary interest or secured status. Equitable execution is neither an easy nor cheap method of enforcement and, often, obtaining a third party debt order or charging order will be a better option for enforcing a judgment debt. However, there are instances where the usual forms of enforcement are not suitable or available and in such cases equitable execution may be a potential

The interest of a beneficiary in trust property. It is called an equitable right because it was originally only recognised in courts of equity. See also ‘legal estate/interest’.

An equitable lien is a non‑possessory security right recognised by the courts of equity, giving a claimant a charge over specific property to secure payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation, even though no formal charge or mortgage was created. It typically arises by operation of law, for example where a purchaser has paid part of the price for property, or where a solicitor or other professional has contributed to the recovery or preservation of an asset.In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, equitable liens are primarily developed through case law rather than statute. They do not transfer ownership but create an equitable proprietary interest, enforceable by sale or by compelling satisfaction of the secured obligation. They are particularly relevant in insolvency, tracing, restitution, and professional costs.In Ireland, the concept is similar and likewise grounded in equitable jurisprudence, with courts recognising equitable liens over real and personal property in appropriate circumstances.Scots law does not use the terminology of “equitable lien”, but functionally comparable rights may arise through equitable principles and rights in security recognised by the Court of Session, though analysis is framed in Scots property and obligations law rather than English equity.

Private Client analysis: The court held that a series of interest-free loan agreements between a company’s shareholders and the company could be set aside for mistake under the equitable principles applicable to voluntary dispositions as set out in Pitt v Holt. The decision makes clear that the court will look at the substance of a transaction, and not simply its form, in deciding whether, on a claim for mistake, the equitable or common law principles should apply. Written by Richard Wilson QC, James Weale and Oliver Jones of Serle Court.

A US concept which occurs when a US bankruptcy court orders implementation of a reorganisation plan pending appeal, which allows other parties to the litigation to build up reliance interests, which in turn causes the district court to declare the pending appeal equitably moot and decline to hear it.

1 Equitable relief [Each Party OR Party A] recognises that any breach or threatened breach of this Agreement may cause [the

While the primary remedy for contractual breach is that of damages (see Practice Note: Contractual damages—general principles and related content), there are occasions in contractual disputes (particularly those where the contract has not, or perhaps not as yet, been breached) where damages may not be available or the most appropriate remedy. In such instances there are a number of equitable remedies which the court has a discretion to order. These include: • specific performance of outstanding obligations under the contract • declaratory relief, for example, as to the meaning of a particular provision in a contract • injunctive relief (whether interim or final) either compelling a party in breach/about to breach the contract to do or abstain from doing something • rectification of a contract or deed • rescission of a contract or deed Where damages for breach of contract are sought they are usually sought and, where awarded, awarded on the basis of the accepted compensatory aim of contractual damages, ie to put the innocent party in the position as if the

A right to equitable remuneration is granted in relation to certain rights related to copyright.

Equitable title describes a person’s beneficial interest in property, even though legal title is held by someone else. In practice, it refers to the rights recognised and enforced by equity (or, in Scotland, by the law of trusts and personal rights) rather than by strict legal ownership.In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the term is mainly used in the context of trusts, contracts for the sale of land, mortgages and proprietary estoppel. Case law recognises that an equitable owner can, for example, compel transfer of legal title, restrain improper dealing with the property, or claim a share of sale proceeds. It is not usually defined in legislation but arises from equitable doctrines and trust principles.In Ireland, usage is broadly similar, with equitable ownership and beneficial interests in land and other property recognised through case law and equitable remedies.In Scotland, the concept is not framed as “equitable title”, as Scots law distinguishes between real and personal rights rather than legal and equitable estates. However, a beneficiary under a trust or a party with a personal right to demand a disposition has a functionally similar protected interest.

Law360, London: A High Court judge ruled on 21 October 2025 that London-based reinsurer Equitas Insurance Ltd wrongly refused to pay out over asbestos-related claims to three RSA Insurance Group companies in a £3.8m dispute.

Stocks and shares quoted on a stock market.