Courtney v Corp Ltd

Courtney v Corp Ltd

The contract complied with Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 because all expressly agreed terms were incorporated by reference into the signed letter and the Facility Letter. There was no express variation requiring compliance with Section 2, and the valuation and security terms were sufficiently set out. The respondent was not in breach of contract or guilty of misrepresentation. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Glen Courtney; Appellant/defendant: Corp Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Requirements for Contracts Disposing of Interests in Land, Damages for Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation
Contract Law Property Law Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 Requirements for Contracts Disposing of Interests in Land Damages for Breach of Contract Misrepresentation

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 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 / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract between the parties complied with Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a single document invalidated the contract
  3. 3 Whether any variation, valuation, or security issues rendered the contract unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The contract complied with Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 because all expressly agreed terms were incorporated by reference into the signed letter and the Facility Letter. There was no express variation requiring compliance with Section 2, and the valuation and security terms were sufficiently set out. The respondent was not in breach of contract or guilty of misrepresentation. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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