Charity of Sir John Morden (Trustees of) v Mayrick

Charity of Sir John Morden (Trustees of) v Mayrick

The defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the College's claim for specific performance of the compromise agreement. The College's possessory title was sufficient in the circumstances, the defendant had admitted the College's ownership in prior proceedings, and any claim to adverse possession or misrepresentation was either not substantiated or was precluded by the terms and context of the compromise. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Trustees in the Charity of Sir John Morden; Defendant/appellant: Brian Mayrick
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Specific Performance, Compromise Agreements, Misrepresentation, Summary Judgment
Property Law Contract Law Adverse Possession Specific Performance Compromise Agreements Misrepresentation Summary Judgment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Trustees in the Charity of Sir John Morden

Claimant/respondent

Brian Mayrick

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the compromise agreement was enforceable under section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether the College had sufficient title to the land to satisfy the compromise agreement
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was induced to enter the compromise agreement by misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the College's claim for specific performance of the compromise agreement. The College's possessory title was sufficient in the circumstances, the defendant had admitted the College's ownership in prior proceedings, and any claim to adverse possession or misrepresentation was either not substantiated or was precluded by the terms and context of the compromise. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Specific performance of the compromise agreement ordered
  • Defendant restrained from occupying land other than as provided in the agreement