Simpole v Chee & Anor

Simpole v Chee & Anor

The court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish actual authority for the person who signed the sale agreement in the first defendant's name. However, the court held that by retaining £110,000 of the sale proceeds with knowledge of the sale, the first defendant had ratified the signature and the contract by conduct. Thus, the requirements of section 2(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 were satisfied, entitling the claimant to specific performance.

Parties
Claimant: Paul Simpole; 1st Defendant: Kwong Sen Lee Shum Chee; 2nd Defendant: Rajesh Babajee
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial of Claim and Counterclaim
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Ratification, Agency, Forgery, Sale of Land
Property Law Contract Law Specific Performance Ratification Agency Forgery Sale of Land

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

Parties

Paul Simpole

Claimant

Kwong Sen Lee Shum Chee

1st Defendant

Rajesh Babajee

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial of Claim and Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the person who signed the sale agreement in the first defendant's name had actual authority to do so
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant ratified the signature on the sale agreement and thus the contract
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of section 2(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 were met

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish actual authority for the person who signed the sale agreement in the first defendant's name. However, the court held that by retaining £110,000 of the sale proceeds with knowledge of the sale, the first defendant had ratified the signature and the contract by conduct. Thus, the requirements of section 2(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 were satisfied, entitling the claimant to specific performance.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Specific performance of the sale agreement decreed
  • First defendant to pay claimant's costs of the claim and counterclaim, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed