Boyle & Ors v Hallstate Ltd & Anor [2002] EWHC 972 (Ch) (13 May 2002)

Boyle & Ors v Hallstate Ltd & Anor [2002] EWHC 972 (Ch) (13 May 2002)

The section 17 notice was valid because, by the time of its service, the parties had reached a binding agreement as to price, thereby compromising the LVT application, and no application was pending in the county court; the claimants were estopped from denying the agreement as to price due to their pleadings and conduct.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 972 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Patrick Joseph Boyle; Appellant/claimant: Lesley Hamilton; Appellant/claimant: Helen Harris; Appellant/claimant: Charles Mitchell; Respondent/defendant: Hallstate Limited; Respondent/defendant: Brexton Properties Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of First Refusal, Enforcement of Statutory Obligations, Compromise of Proceedings, Validity of Statutory Notices, Specific Performance, Estoppel
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Civil Procedure Right of First Refusal Enforcement of Statutory Obligations Compromise of Proceedings Validity of Statutory Notices Specific Performance +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Joseph Boyle

Appellant/claimant

Lesley Hamilton

Appellant/claimant

Helen Harris

Appellant/claimant

Charles Mitchell

Appellant/claimant

Hallstate Limited

Respondent/defendant

Brexton Properties Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the section 17 notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 was valid and operated to terminate the claimants' rights to acquire the freehold
  2. 2 Whether there was a binding agreement as to price sufficient to compromise the LVT application
  3. 3 Whether the county court proceedings were pending at the time of the section 17 notice

Ratio Decidendi

The section 17 notice was valid because, by the time of its service, the parties had reached a binding agreement as to price, thereby compromising the LVT application, and no application was pending in the county court; the claimants were estopped from denying the agreement as to price due to their pleadings and conduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Section 17 notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 held valid
  • Claimants' application to amend particulars of claim refused