Courtney v Corp Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 518 (01 March 2006)

Courtney v Corp Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 518 (01 March 2006)

The contract between the parties complied with Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 because all expressly agreed terms were contained in the signed letter of 10 December 2003 and the incorporated Facility Letter; there was no express variation requiring compliance with Section 2; the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 518
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Glen Courtney; Appellant/defendant: Corp Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Requirements for Contracts Disposing of Interests in Land, Contract Formation, Incorporation by Reference, Variation of Contract, Misrepresentation, Damages for Breach of Contract
Property Law Contract Law Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 Requirements for Contracts Disposing of Interests in Land Contract Formation Incorporation by Reference Variation of Contract Misrepresentation +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Glen Courtney

Respondent/claimant

Corp Ltd

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract between the parties complied with Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 and was enforceable
  2. 2 Whether there was a variation of the contract requiring compliance with Section 2
  3. 3 Whether the contract was void for uncertainty regarding valuation and security terms

Ratio Decidendi

The contract between the parties complied with Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 because all expressly agreed terms were contained in the signed letter of 10 December 2003 and the incorporated Facility Letter; there was no express variation requiring compliance with Section 2; the valuation and security terms were sufficiently certain; and there was no breach or misrepresentation by the respondent. The appeal was dismissed as the contract was enforceable and the grounds of appeal had no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Application for permission to appeal on additional grounds dismissed