Khan v Malik & Anor [2023] EWHC 2529 (Ch) (12 October 2023)

Khan v Malik & Anor [2023] EWHC 2529 (Ch) (12 October 2023)

The oral agreement of 8 August 2016 was sufficiently certain to be enforceable as it was not an agreement for lease but an agreement to offer a lease to a new entity controlled by Fahmida Malik, with the lease to commence upon formation of that entity; the Defendant breached the agreement by failing to grant the lease as agreed; and the Claimants were entitled to recover the cost of the Moitree shares and refurbishment as reliance damages.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2529 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Moqsud Ahmed Khan; Claimant/respondent: Abdul Malik; Claimant/respondent: Adnan Malik
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Against County Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed after permission granted
Legal Topics
Certainty of Contract, Agreements for Lease, Damages for Breach of Contract, Reliance Loss, Restitution, Unjust Enrichment
Contract Law Property Law Certainty of Contract Agreements for Lease Damages for Breach of Contract Reliance Loss Restitution Unjust Enrichment

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moqsud Ahmed Khan

Appellant/defendant

Abdul Malik

Claimant/respondent

Adnan Malik

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Against County Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the oral agreement of 8 August 2016 was sufficiently certain to be enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant was in breach of the agreement by failing to grant a lease as agreed
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants were entitled to recover the cost of Moitree shares and refurbishment as damages

Ratio Decidendi

The oral agreement of 8 August 2016 was sufficiently certain to be enforceable as it was not an agreement for lease but an agreement to offer a lease to a new entity controlled by Fahmida Malik, with the lease to commence upon formation of that entity; the Defendant breached the agreement by failing to grant the lease as agreed; and the Claimants were entitled to recover the cost of the Moitree shares and refurbishment as reliance damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed after permission granted

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed