Hardy & Anor v Haselden & Ors

Hardy & Anor v Haselden & Ors

The order granting the Hardys a 90-year lease and specific performance of an oral agreement was wrong in law as the alleged agreement did not satisfy statutory requirements for a lease; the monetary judgment was also unjustified. The appeal is allowed, the order set aside, and a retrial ordered.

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 Adduce Fresh Evidence, Permission to Appeal, and Order for Retrial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of District Judge Anson set aside; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Oral Agreements for Leases, Specific Performance, Setting Aside Default Judgments, CPR Rule 39.3, Law of Property Act 1925 S.149(6), Limitation of Actions
Land Law Civil Procedure Oral Agreements for Leases Specific Performance Setting Aside Default Judgments CPR Rule 39.3 Law of Property Act 1925 S.149(6) 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 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 Adduce Fresh Evidence, Permission to Appeal, and Order for Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were entitled to a lease for 90 years terminable on death under an oral agreement
  2. 2 Whether the order for specific performance and monetary judgment was justified
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' application to set aside the default judgment should have been granted

Ratio Decidendi

The order granting the Hardys a 90-year lease and specific performance of an oral agreement was wrong in law as the alleged agreement did not satisfy statutory requirements for a lease; the monetary judgment was also unjustified. The appeal is allowed, the order set aside, and a retrial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of District Judge Anson set aside; retrial ordered

Orders

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