Peter Savva v Cuckoo Hill Limited & Anor

Peter Savva v Cuckoo Hill Limited & Anor

The defendants failed to prove the existence of any oral agreement superseding the Sale and Interest Agreements. The first defendant breached the Sale Agreement by failing to pay £600,000 to the claimant. The second defendant induced breach of contract and committed a transaction at undervalue under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 by dissipating funds for his own benefit, prejudicing the claimant. The limitation defence fails due to deliberate concealment and lack of disclosure. The claimant is entitled to declaratory relief and judgment for £600,000 plus interest against both defendants and £11,170 plus interest against the second defendant.

Parties
Claimant: Peter Savva; First Defendant: Cuckoo Hill Limited; Second Defendant: Marios Stylianides
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant against both defendants.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Inducing Breach of Contract, Transaction at Undervalue, Limitation, Deliberate Concealment, Declaratory Relief, Interest
Contract Law Property Law Insolvency Law Tort Law Breach of Contract Inducing Breach of Contract Transaction at Undervalue Limitation +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Savva

Claimant

Cuckoo Hill Limited

First Defendant

Marios Stylianides

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached the Sale Agreement by failing to pay £600,000 to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant is liable for unpaid sums under the Interest Agreement
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant induced breach of contract and/or committed a transaction at undervalue under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to prove the existence of any oral agreement superseding the Sale and Interest Agreements. The first defendant breached the Sale Agreement by failing to pay £600,000 to the claimant. The second defendant induced breach of contract and committed a transaction at undervalue under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 by dissipating funds for his own benefit, prejudicing the claimant. The limitation defence fails due to deliberate concealment and lack of disclosure. The claimant is entitled to declaratory relief and judgment for £600,000 plus interest against both defendants and £11,170 plus interest against the second defendant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant against both defendants.

Orders

  • Declaratory relief as pleaded.
  • Judgment against both defendants for £600,000 plus interest.