Ali v Dinc & Ors [2020] EWHC 3055 (Ch) (16 November 2020)

Ali v Dinc & Ors [2020] EWHC 3055 (Ch) (16 November 2020)

The court found that the arrangement between the claimant and the first defendant was not an outright gift but was intended to be conditional, with the first defendant to raise finance for the claimant using the properties. However, the arrangement was void for want of writing under s.2 LPMPA 1989 and for uncertainty. As a result, the claimant was entitled to a vendor's lien over the properties to secure the unpaid purchase price of £1.35 million, but this equitable interest was postponed to the third defendant's registered charge. The claimant was not entitled to recover the properties outright, but was entitled to a monetary remedy secured by the lien.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3055 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Huseyin Ali; First Defendant: Ismet Dinc; Second Defendant: Selahi Dinc; Third Defendant: Charter Court Financial Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Business List (ch D) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claimant entitled to a vendor's lien over the properties to secure the sum of £1.35 million, but the lien is postponed to the third defendant's registered charge. No order for return of the properties. Alternative personal remedies in restitution or equitable compensation are not granted beyond the lien.
Legal Topics
Equitable Proprietary Interests, Vendor's Lien, Resulting Trust, Conditional Transfer of Property, Proprietary Estoppel, Restitution, Equitable Compensation, Priority of Interests, Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
Equity Property Law Trusts Equitable Proprietary Interests Vendor's Lien Resulting Trust Conditional Transfer of Property Proprietary Estoppel +4 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Huseyin Ali

Claimant

Ismet Dinc

First Defendant

Selahi Dinc

Second Defendant

Charter Court Financial Services Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Business List (ch D) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of two properties from the claimant to the first defendant was subject to an enforceable contract or conditional arrangement
  2. 2 Whether the claimant retains an equitable proprietary interest in the properties or is entitled to a vendor's lien
  3. 3 Whether the arrangement between the parties was void for uncertainty or lack of writing under s.2 LPMPA 1989

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arrangement between the claimant and the first defendant was not an outright gift but was intended to be conditional, with the first defendant to raise finance for the claimant using the properties. However, the arrangement was void for want of writing under s.2 LPMPA 1989 and for uncertainty. As a result, the claimant was entitled to a vendor's lien over the properties to secure the unpaid purchase price of £1.35 million, but this equitable interest was postponed to the third defendant's registered charge. The claimant was not entitled to recover the properties outright, but was entitled to a monetary remedy secured by the lien.

Court Disposition

Claimant entitled to a vendor's lien over the properties to secure the sum of £1.35 million, but the lien is postponed to the third defendant's registered charge. No order for return of the properties. Alternative personal remedies in restitution or equitable compensation are not granted beyond the lien.

Orders

  • Declaration that the claimant has a vendor's lien over the properties to secure £1.35 million, postponed to the third defendant's charge.
  • Claim for return of the properties dismissed.