Idris-Goudarz v Goudarz

Idris-Goudarz v Goudarz

The court found that no binding oral agreements were made to vary the Deed of Compromise or to entitle Mr Goudarz to set off his alleged expenditures against the sums due under the Deed. The evidence did not support the existence of such agreements, and the claims for set-off, debt, or unjust enrichment failed. Ms Idris-Goudarz was entitled to enforce the Deed, receive the net proceeds of sale of 15 Spring Sedge, and payment of the outstanding sum with interest. She was also entitled to costs as provided by the Deed and at law.

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, Family) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim by Mr Goudarz dismissed; application by Ms Idris-Goudarz granted
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Settlement Agreements, Variation of Contract, Set Off and Counterclaim, Costs and Indemnity, Mortgage and Property Sale, Unjust Enrichment
Contract Law Property Law Family Law Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Variation of Contract Set Off and Counterclaim Costs and Indemnity Mortgage and Property Sale +1 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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, Family) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deed of Compromise dated 21 November 2014 was varied by subsequent oral agreements
  2. 2 Whether Mr Goudarz is entitled to set off alleged debts for property repairs against sums due under the Deed
  3. 3 Whether Ms Idris-Goudarz is entitled to enforcement of the Deed and payment of sums due

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no binding oral agreements were made to vary the Deed of Compromise or to entitle Mr Goudarz to set off his alleged expenditures against the sums due under the Deed. The evidence did not support the existence of such agreements, and the claims for set-off, debt, or unjust enrichment failed. Ms Idris-Goudarz was entitled to enforce the Deed, receive the net proceeds of sale of 15 Spring Sedge, and payment of the outstanding sum with interest. She was also entitled to costs as provided by the Deed and at law.

Court Disposition

Claim by Mr Goudarz dismissed; application by Ms Idris-Goudarz granted

Orders

  • Mr Goudarz to instruct Kenneth Bush Solicitors to pay the net proceeds of sale of 15 Spring Sedge to Ms Idris-Goudarz's solicitors within 7 days
  • Mr Goudarz to pay Ms Idris-Goudarz the sum of £180,000 less half the net proceeds of 15 Spring Sedge, plus interest at 4% per annum from the due dates under the Deed until payment