Francis v F Berndes Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 3377 (Ch) (15 December 2011)

Francis v F Berndes Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 3377 (Ch) (15 December 2011)

The 7 January 2004 letter did not comply with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 because it failed to expressly record the obligation of the claimant and Mr Hughes to purchase the property; signatures alone were insufficient to incorporate this term, and extrinsic evidence or implied terms could not cure the defect.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3377 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Patrick Francis; First Defendant: F. Berndes Limited; Defendants: Desmond Hughes' children (names not specified)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in High Court, Chancery Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except permission granted to apply for amendment to plead restitution claim.
Legal Topics
Formal Requirements for Land Contracts, Summary Judgment, Rectification, Restitution, Limitation of Actions
Property Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Formal Requirements for Land Contracts Summary Judgment Rectification Restitution Limitation of Actions

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Francis

Claimant

F. Berndes Limited

First Defendant

Desmond Hughes' children (names not specified)

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in High Court, Chancery Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 7 January 2004 agreement complied with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether rectification or restitution claims could be pursued despite non-compliance with section 2

Ratio Decidendi

The 7 January 2004 letter did not comply with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 because it failed to expressly record the obligation of the claimant and Mr Hughes to purchase the property; signatures alone were insufficient to incorporate this term, and extrinsic evidence or implied terms could not cure the defect.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except permission granted to apply for amendment to plead restitution claim.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed for non-compliance with section 2 of the 1989 Act.
  • Claimant permitted to apply for permission to amend pleadings to raise a restitution claim.