arbiter
JournalsAccount

EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP

Michael Briggs

Cambridge Law Journal2026https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197326101123article
ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Recent academic debate has questioned whether equitable interests should continue to be classified as proprietary, proposing instead analyses based on “rights against rights”, “modified” proprietary rights or the erosion of the proprietary/personal divide. This article, based on the text of the XXIV Old Buildings Lecture 2025, argues that these alternative frameworks, while illuminating, do not displace the enduring value of the traditional proprietary analysis. It shows that equity has long functioned as the principal means by which the law recognises ownership beyond traditional common-law categories. The proprietary characterisation of equitable interests accords with established principle, is often the simplest workable solution to the problem in hand, and corresponds to the ordinary understanding of ownership.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197326101123

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{michael2026,
  title        = {{EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP}},
  author       = {Michael Briggs},
  journal      = {Cambridge Law Journal},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197326101123},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.