Lloyds Bank Plc & Ors v Cassidy [2004] EWCA Civ 1767 (01 December 2004)

Lloyds Bank Plc & Ors v Cassidy [2004] EWCA Civ 1767 (01 December 2004)

The applicant failed to show that the bank or receivers were in breach of any duty in rejecting the Black offer, as the offer was not obviously favourable and did not cover the full indebtedness. The receivers were entitled to sell the land and not obliged to sow for the 1993 harvest. Damages were correctly apportioned due to the partnership and bankruptcy law. Procedural irregularities did not cause prejudice or injustice and did not justify permission to appeal.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1767
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Lloyds Bank plc; Claimant/respondent: Ralph Stephen Reece; Claimant/respondent: Gurpal Singh Johal; Defendant/applicant: Michael William Cassidy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Order of Trial Judge
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Mortgagee's Duties, Receivership, Breach of Duty, Damages, Procedural Fairness, Partnership Law
Banking and Finance Property Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Mortgagee's Duties Receivership Breach of Duty Damages +2 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyds Bank plc

Claimant/respondent

Ralph Stephen Reece

Claimant/respondent

Gurpal Singh Johal

Claimant/respondent

Michael William Cassidy

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Order of Trial Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bank or receivers were in breach of duty in failing to accept the Black offer for sale of land
  2. 2 Whether the receivers were in breach of duty in failing to sow for the 1993 harvest
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to the full amount of damages or only a half share

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to show that the bank or receivers were in breach of any duty in rejecting the Black offer, as the offer was not obviously favourable and did not cover the full indebtedness. The receivers were entitled to sell the land and not obliged to sow for the 1993 harvest. Damages were correctly apportioned due to the partnership and bankruptcy law. Procedural irregularities did not cause prejudice or injustice and did not justify permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused