Frasers Islington Ltd v The Hanover Trustee Company Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 1514 (Ch) (25 June 2010)

Frasers Islington Ltd v The Hanover Trustee Company Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 1514 (Ch) (25 June 2010)

Specific performance was granted because the deviation from the contract (exclusion of the LHC from the commercial lease) was minor, did not deprive RAB of the substance of its bargain, FIL had good reason for its actions, and RAB had no real prospect of success at trial on any of its grounds for resisting specific performance.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1514 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Frasers Islington Limited; Defendant/appellant: The Hanover Trustee Company Limited; Defendant/appellant: Robert Anthony Bourne; Defendant/appellant: Sally Anne Greene; Defendant/appellant: Alan Lawrence Banes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Order of Master Bowles
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Building Leases, Options to Purchase Freehold, Vacant Possession, Equitable Remedies
Property Law Equity Specific Performance Building Leases Options to Purchase Freehold Vacant Possession Equitable Remedies

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frasers Islington Limited

Claimant/respondent

The Hanover Trustee Company Limited

Defendant/appellant

Robert Anthony Bourne

Defendant/appellant

Sally Anne Greene

Defendant/appellant

Alan Lawrence Banes

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Order of Master Bowles

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific performance should be granted where the claimant cannot deliver the exact subject matter of the contract due to a minor deviation
  2. 2 Whether the installation of a residential transformer in the wrong substation chamber constituted a breach precluding specific performance
  3. 3 Whether the claimant acted with clean hands and was ready, able, and willing to perform its obligations

Ratio Decidendi

Specific performance was granted because the deviation from the contract (exclusion of the LHC from the commercial lease) was minor, did not deprive RAB of the substance of its bargain, FIL had good reason for its actions, and RAB had no real prospect of success at trial on any of its grounds for resisting specific performance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Specific performance of the contract granted to FIL, with the commercial lease to include the RHC and exclude the LHC, at RAB's election, and provision for financial compensation to RAB for any consequential loss.