Orton v Collins & Ors [2007] EWHC 803 (Ch) (23 April 2007)

Orton v Collins & Ors [2007] EWHC 803 (Ch) (23 April 2007)

A settlement under CPR Part 36, even if it involves the disposition of an interest in land and does not comply with section 2 of the 1989 Act, is enforceable by the court as a sui generis obligation arising from the parties' submission to the court's procedural rules; compliance with section 2 is not required for enforceability under Part 36.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 803 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Kim Andrew Orton; Defendant/appellant: John Brook Collins; Defendant/appellant: Martyn Richard Hudson; Defendant/appellant: Simon Jonathan Nethercott; Defendant/appellant: Alan John Charles Griffiths; Defendant/appellant: Alan Stuart Fairley; Defendant/appellant: Ian Michael Newcombe; Defendant/appellant: David Harold Phillips; Defendant/appellant: Anju Kalia; Defendant/appellant: Nicola Lowe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Preliminary Point
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Settlement of Litigation, Disposition of Interest in Land, Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Enforceability of Settlements
Civil Procedure Property Law Part 36 Offers Settlement of Litigation Disposition of Interest in Land Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 Enforceability of Settlements

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

Parties

Kim Andrew Orton

Claimant/respondent

John Brook Collins

Defendant/appellant

Martyn Richard Hudson

Defendant/appellant

Simon Jonathan Nethercott

Defendant/appellant

Alan John Charles Griffiths

Defendant/appellant

Alan Stuart Fairley

Defendant/appellant

Ian Michael Newcombe

Defendant/appellant

David Harold Phillips

Defendant/appellant

Anju Kalia

Defendant/appellant

Nicola Lowe

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Preliminary Point

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does acceptance of a Part 36 offer involving disposition of an interest in land require compliance with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989?
  2. 2 Does a Part 36 settlement create a contract or a sui generis enforceable obligation?
  3. 3 Can the court enforce a Part 36 settlement that does not comply with section 2 formalities?

Ratio Decidendi

A settlement under CPR Part 36, even if it involves the disposition of an interest in land and does not comply with section 2 of the 1989 Act, is enforceable by the court as a sui generis obligation arising from the parties' submission to the court's procedural rules; compliance with section 2 is not required for enforceability under Part 36.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The preliminary objection that the Part 36 settlement is unenforceable for non-compliance with section 2 of the 1989 Act is rejected.
  • The court has power to order the parties to sign a single document incorporating the settlement terms.