Cohen v Teseo Properties Ltd & Anor

Cohen v Teseo Properties Ltd & Anor

The contract terminated on 6 January 2014 as the buyer failed to request an extension of time under clause 13.5 before or on that date. After termination, the buyer could not revive the contract or call for completion under clause 3.1.2. The Claimant was entitled to forfeit the deposit, and there were no special or exceptional circumstances to justify relief under section 49(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Parties
Claimant: Ruven Cohen; First Defendant: Teseo Properties Limited; Second Defendant: Francis Powell; Third Defendant: Michael Proudlock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/property) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract Terms, Specific Performance, Forfeiture of Deposit, Discretion Under Section 49(2) Law of Property Act 1925
Contract Law Property Law Interpretation of Contract Terms Specific Performance Forfeiture of Deposit Discretion Under 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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruven Cohen

Claimant

Teseo Properties Limited

First Defendant

Francis Powell

Second Defendant

Michael Proudlock

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/property) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract for sale of property terminated on 6 January 2014 for failure to request extension of time under clause 13.5
  2. 2 Whether the buyer could request an extension after the Long Stop Date
  3. 3 Whether the buyer could call for completion under clause 3.1.2 after termination

Ratio Decidendi

The contract terminated on 6 January 2014 as the buyer failed to request an extension of time under clause 13.5 before or on that date. After termination, the buyer could not revive the contract or call for completion under clause 3.1.2. The Claimant was entitled to forfeit the deposit, and there were no special or exceptional circumstances to justify relief under section 49(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the contract has terminated and the Claimant is free to dispose of the property
  • Defendants' application for specific performance dismissed