Hardy & Anor v Haselden & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1387 (29 November 2011)

Hardy & Anor v Haselden & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1387 (29 November 2011)

The County Court judgment granting a 90-year lease and specific performance was wrong in law because there was no valid written agreement or contract to satisfy statutory requirements for the disposition of interests in land. The monetary judgment was also unsustainable as it relied on the invalid lease and included damages not properly recoverable. The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and a retrial ordered.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 1387
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Richard Alan Hardy; Claimant / Respondent: Pauline Hardy; Defendant / Appellant: John Edmund Haselden (by his personal representatives, Iris Haselden and Jill Haselden); Defendant / Appellant: Iris Haselden; Defendant / Appellant: Jill Elizabeth Haselden (otherwise Ollerton)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment; Application for Extension of Time, Permission to Appeal, Adduce Fresh Evidence, and for Retrial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Oral Agreements for Leases, Specific Performance, CPR Rule 39.3 (setting Aside Judgment), Appeals Procedure, Law of Property Act 1925 S.149(6), Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 S.2(1), Limitation of Actions
Property Law Civil Procedure Oral Agreements for Leases Specific Performance CPR Rule 39.3 (setting Aside Judgment) Appeals Procedure Law of Property Act 1925 S.149(6) Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 S.2(1) +1 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Alan Hardy

Claimant / Respondent

Pauline Hardy

Claimant / Respondent

John Edmund Haselden (by his personal representatives, Iris Haselden and Jill Haselden)

Defendant / Appellant

Iris Haselden

Defendant / Appellant

Jill Elizabeth Haselden (otherwise Ollerton)

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment; Application for Extension of Time, Permission to Appeal, Adduce Fresh Evidence, and for Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were entitled to a lease for 90 years under an alleged oral agreement
  2. 2 Whether the County Court judgment granting a declaration, specific performance, and damages was correct in law
  3. 3 Whether the defendants should be granted relief from judgment under CPR Rule 39.3

Ratio Decidendi

The County Court judgment granting a 90-year lease and specific performance was wrong in law because there was no valid written agreement or contract to satisfy statutory requirements for the disposition of interests in land. The monetary judgment was also unsustainable as it relied on the invalid lease and included damages not properly recoverable. The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and a retrial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; retrial ordered

Orders

  • Extension of time for filing appellants' notice granted
  • Permission to appeal granted