Davies & Ors v Jones & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 764 (04 June 2008)

Davies & Ors v Jones & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 764 (04 June 2008)

There was no evidence that Bevan Ashford acted as agent for Mr Jones in holding the retention monies, nor that Mr Jones had any control over the monies after completion. The claim against Mr Jones was unsustainable as he had no dealings with the retention monies post-completion, and there was no Quistclose Trust as no condition was imposed on the monies returned. Accordingly, there was no real prospect of success on appeal against the summary judgment in favour of Mr Jones.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 764
Parties
Appellants: Davies & Ors; Respondents: Jones & Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Retention of Purchase Monies, Quistclose Trust, Agency, Summary Judgment, Sale and Purchase Agreement
Property Law Trusts Law Contract Law Retention of Purchase Monies Quistclose Trust Agency Summary Judgment Sale and Purchase Agreement

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Davies & Ors

Appellants

Jones & Anr

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant (Mr Jones) was liable for breach of trust or contract regarding the £100,000 retention monies under the sale and purchase agreement
  2. 2 Whether Bevan Ashford acted as agent for Mr Jones in holding the retention monies
  3. 3 Whether a Quistclose Trust existed over the retention monies

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that Bevan Ashford acted as agent for Mr Jones in holding the retention monies, nor that Mr Jones had any control over the monies after completion. The claim against Mr Jones was unsustainable as he had no dealings with the retention monies post-completion, and there was no Quistclose Trust as no condition was imposed on the monies returned. Accordingly, there was no real prospect of success on appeal against the summary judgment in favour of Mr Jones.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is refused