Arrowgame Ltd & Anor v Wildsmith & Ors [2016] EWHC 3608 (Ch) (16 November 2016)

Arrowgame Ltd & Anor v Wildsmith & Ors [2016] EWHC 3608 (Ch) (16 November 2016)

The word 'execute' in the consent order required both signature and delivery of the deed, not merely signature. The Defendants failed to deliver the executed transfer, and were therefore in default of the order. The court was entitled to execute the transfer in their place under the consent order and s.39 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3608 (Ch)
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Arrowgame Ltd; Defendant/appellant: D Goodman; Claimants/respondents: Wildsmith and 11 others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Order Refusing to Set Aside Execution of Transfer and Refusing Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Execution of Deeds, Delivery of Deeds, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Consent Orders, Transfer of Leasehold Interests, Interpretation of Court Orders
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Execution of Deeds Delivery of Deeds Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 Consent Orders Transfer of Leasehold Interests +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arrowgame Ltd

Defendant/appellant

D Goodman

Defendant/appellant

Wildsmith and 11 others

Claimants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Order Refusing to Set Aside Execution of Transfer and Refusing Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'execution' in the consent order required only signature or also delivery of the deed
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants were in default of the consent order by not delivering the executed transfer
  3. 3 Whether the court was entitled to execute the transfer in place of the Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The word 'execute' in the consent order required both signature and delivery of the deed, not merely signature. The Defendants failed to deliver the executed transfer, and were therefore in default of the order. The court was entitled to execute the transfer in their place under the consent order and s.39 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted but appeal dismissed on merits
  • Order of HHJ Dight affirmed, including execution of transfer by the court and costs order against Defendants