Rollerteam Ltd & Anor v Riley & Anor

Rollerteam Ltd & Anor v Riley & Anor

Section 2 of the 1989 Act did not apply because the contract was not executory; it was formed by the exchange of a promise for the actual execution of the declarations of trust, which constituted both acceptance and consideration. Therefore, the agreement was not void for non-compliance with section 2.

Parties
Claimant: Rollerteam Limited; Claimant/appellant: John Aidiniantz; Defendant/respondent: Linda Riley; Third Party/respondent: Jennifer Decoteau
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Dispositions of Interests in Land, Settlement Agreements, Declarations of Trust
Contract Law Property Law Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 Dispositions of Interests in Land Settlement Agreements Declarations of Trust

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rollerteam Limited

Claimant

John Aidiniantz

Claimant/appellant

Linda Riley

Defendant/respondent

Jennifer Decoteau

Third Party/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement was void for failure to comply with section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether the agreement was an executory contract or a contract of disposition

Ratio Decidendi

Section 2 of the 1989 Act did not apply because the contract was not executory; it was formed by the exchange of a promise for the actual execution of the declarations of trust, which constituted both acceptance and consideration. Therefore, the agreement was not void for non-compliance with section 2.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for respondents for outstanding £1.7 million owed by Mr Aidiniantz
  • Order for payment of interest on the sums due