Midill (97pl) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd & Anor

Midill (97pl) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd & Anor

Midill failed to prove that Gomba was not ready, able and willing to complete at the relevant dates. Gomba was entitled to forfeit the deposit as the purchaser failed to complete and there were no special circumstances justifying return of the deposit under section 49(2) Law of Property Act 1925, even though Gomba resold the property at a profit.

Parties
Claimant: Midill (97PL) Limited; First Defendant: Park Lane Estates Limited; Second Defendant: Gomba International Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract/commercial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Deposit, Readiness and Willingness to Complete, Notice to Complete, Damages for Breach of Contract, Section 49(2) Law of Property Act 1925
Contract Law Property Law Equity Forfeiture of Deposit Readiness and Willingness to Complete Notice to Complete Damages for Breach of Contract Section 49(2) Law of Property Act 1925

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Midill (97PL) Limited

Claimant

Park Lane Estates Limited

First Defendant

Gomba International Investments Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract/commercial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor (Gomba) was ready, able and willing to complete at the relevant dates for service and expiry of notice to complete
  2. 2 Whether the deposit of £400,000 should be returned to the purchaser (Midill) or forfeited
  3. 3 Whether the sale to a third party at a profit affects the right to forfeit the deposit

Ratio Decidendi

Midill failed to prove that Gomba was not ready, able and willing to complete at the relevant dates. Gomba was entitled to forfeit the deposit as the purchaser failed to complete and there were no special circumstances justifying return of the deposit under section 49(2) Law of Property Act 1925, even though Gomba resold the property at a profit.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Midill’s claim for repayment of the £400,000 deposit is dismissed.
  • Gomba is not obliged to repay the deposit and has returned the £800,000 tranche.