Idris-Goudarz v Goudarz [2020] EWHC 1878 (Ch) (15 July 2020)

Idris-Goudarz v Goudarz [2020] EWHC 1878 (Ch) (15 July 2020)

The Deed of Compromise was binding and enforceable. Mr Goudarz failed to prove any binding oral agreements to vary or discharge his obligations under the Deed. The alleged oral agreements lacked evidence of intention to create legal relations and certainty. Mr Goudarz's claims for set-off and estoppel failed for lack of clear evidence. Ms Idris-Goudarz is entitled to enforce the Deed and recover the sums due, including the proceeds of 15 Spring Sedge, interest, and costs.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1878 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant (hc 2014 000361) / Defendant (bl 2019 000001): Barasa Adele Idris-Goudarz; Defendant (hc 2014 000361) / Claimant (bl 2019 000001): Khosrow Goudarz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Chancery (property/contract/probate) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Application granted for enforcement of Deed; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Settlement (tomlin Order), Variation and Waiver of Contract, Oral Agreements and Intention to Create Legal Relations, Set Off and Estoppel, Joint Property and Beneficial Interests, Costs
Contract Law Property Law Probate Civil Procedure Enforcement of Settlement (tomlin Order) Variation and Waiver of Contract Oral Agreements and Intention to Create Legal Relations Set Off and Estoppel +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barasa Adele Idris-Goudarz

Claimant (hc 2014 000361) / Defendant (bl 2019 000001)

Khosrow Goudarz

Defendant (hc 2014 000361) / Claimant (bl 2019 000001)

Procedural Posture

Civil Chancery (property/contract/probate) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deed of Compromise (Tomlin Order) was enforceable and breached
  2. 2 Whether alleged oral agreements varied or discharged obligations under the Deed
  3. 3 Whether sums claimed by Mr Goudarz for repairs/outgoings were due and could be set off

Ratio Decidendi

The Deed of Compromise was binding and enforceable. Mr Goudarz failed to prove any binding oral agreements to vary or discharge his obligations under the Deed. The alleged oral agreements lacked evidence of intention to create legal relations and certainty. Mr Goudarz's claims for set-off and estoppel failed for lack of clear evidence. Ms Idris-Goudarz is entitled to enforce the Deed and recover the sums due, including the proceeds of 15 Spring Sedge, interest, and costs.

Court Disposition

Application granted for enforcement of Deed; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Mr Goudarz to instruct solicitors to pay Ms Idris-Goudarz the net proceeds of 15 Spring Sedge, Downham Market, with accrued interest.
  • Mr Goudarz to pay the difference between the net proceeds and £180,000 with 4% annual interest.