ALEXEY SAMARENKO v DAWN HILL HOUSE LIMITED

ALEXEY SAMARENKO v DAWN HILL HOUSE LIMITED

Failure to pay the deposit on the stipulated date was a repudiatory breach of contract, entitling the seller to terminate. The deposit clause was a condition of the contract, and any presumption that time was not of the essence was rebutted. Even if time was not originally of the essence, the seller's notice made it so, and failure to pay within the reasonable notice period was a repudiatory breach. There was no causal connection between the seller's refusal to allow inspection and the buyer's failure to pay the deposit.

Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Alexey Samarenko; Defendant / Appellant: Dawn Hill House Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sale of Land, Repudiatory Breach, Deposit Payment, Time of the Essence, Equitable Relief
Contract Law Property Law Sale of Land Repudiatory Breach Deposit Payment Time of the Essence Equitable Relief

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexey Samarenko

Claimant / Respondent

Dawn Hill House Limited

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is a failure to pay a deposit on time under a contract for the sale of land necessarily a repudiatory breach of contract entitling the seller to terminate the contract?
  2. 2 If not, was time successfully made of the essence of payment in this case, entitling the seller to terminate the contract?

Ratio Decidendi

Failure to pay the deposit on the stipulated date was a repudiatory breach of contract, entitling the seller to terminate. The deposit clause was a condition of the contract, and any presumption that time was not of the essence was rebutted. Even if time was not originally of the essence, the seller's notice made it so, and failure to pay within the reasonable notice period was a repudiatory breach. There was no causal connection between the seller's refusal to allow inspection and the buyer's failure to pay the deposit.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment for the claimant/respondent (Mr Samarenko) is upheld
  • The contract was validly terminated by the seller for repudiatory breach