Butcher & Anor v Pike & Ors (Rev 1)

Butcher & Anor v Pike & Ors (Rev 1)

The court found that neither the Rightmove nor Zoopla terms contained a clear, express contractual prohibition on the Company placing adverts on behalf of other commercial lettings agents. The definitions and express terms permitted such activity, and any restriction would have been clearly stated if intended. The court also held that for the purposes of the SPA, disclosure relevant to the warranty limitation is not confined to the Disclosure Letter; actual knowledge of the purchaser is sufficient. The Defendants had no real prospect of succeeding on either issue, and summary judgment was granted for the Claimants.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Brett John Butcher; Claimant/applicant: Darren Trueman; Defendant/respondent: Richard Pike; Defendant/respondent: Adrian Arkell; Defendant/respondent: Karl Carter
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial/contract / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the Claimants on both issues. Declarations made as sought.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contracts, Breach of Warranty, Misrepresentation, Summary Judgment, Disclosure Obligations
Contract Law Commercial Law Interpretation of Contracts Breach of Warranty Misrepresentation Summary Judgment Disclosure Obligations

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brett John Butcher

Claimant/applicant

Darren Trueman

Claimant/applicant

Richard Pike

Defendant/respondent

Adrian Arkell

Defendant/respondent

Karl Carter

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial/contract / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Company was contractually prohibited from placing adverts on behalf of other commercial lettings agents on Rightmove or Zoopla at the time of the SPA (Issue 1)
  2. 2 Whether disclosure for the purposes of the SPA warranty limitation must be contained in the Disclosure Letter (Issue 2)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that neither the Rightmove nor Zoopla terms contained a clear, express contractual prohibition on the Company placing adverts on behalf of other commercial lettings agents. The definitions and express terms permitted such activity, and any restriction would have been clearly stated if intended. The court also held that for the purposes of the SPA, disclosure relevant to the warranty limitation is not confined to the Disclosure Letter; actual knowledge of the purchaser is sufficient. The Defendants had no real prospect of succeeding on either issue, and summary judgment was granted for the Claimants.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the Claimants on both issues. Declarations made as sought.

Orders

  • Declarations that the Defendants have no real prospect of establishing at trial that the Company was contractually prohibited from placing adverts on behalf of other commercial lettings agents on Rightmove or Zoopla at the time of the SPA.
  • Declarations that disclosure for the purposes of the SPA warranty limitation is not confined to the Disclosure Letter.