Saunders & Anor v Himaly & Ors [2017] EWHC 2219 (Ch) (11 May 2017)

Saunders & Anor v Himaly & Ors [2017] EWHC 2219 (Ch) (11 May 2017)

The appeal was allowed because the judge erred in granting summary judgment on a basis inconsistent with the pleadings, failed to recognise that both parties pleaded an enforceable agreement, and did not properly consider whether the facts were distinguishable from Cobbe v Yeoman's Row. There was an arguable defence that required a trial.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2219 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Bernard Saunders; Appellant/defendant: Linda Saunders; Respondent/claimant: Shadia Hamad Al Himaly; Respondent/claimant: Ghassan Hamad Al Himaly; Respondent/claimant: Mazen Hamad Al Himaly; Respondent/claimant: Ghaddah Hamad Al Himaly
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Summary Judgment and Possession Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Proprietary Estoppel, Constructive Trust, Possession Proceedings, Relief From Sanctions
Property Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Proprietary Estoppel Constructive Trust Possession Proceedings Relief From Sanctions

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard Saunders

Appellant/defendant

Linda Saunders

Appellant/defendant

Shadia Hamad Al Himaly

Respondent/claimant

Ghassan Hamad Al Himaly

Respondent/claimant

Mazen Hamad Al Himaly

Respondent/claimant

Ghaddah Hamad Al Himaly

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Summary Judgment and Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was wrongly granted against the Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the facts are materially indistinguishable from Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55
  3. 3 Whether the judge was right to grant summary judgment after parts of the Defence were struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the judge erred in granting summary judgment on a basis inconsistent with the pleadings, failed to recognise that both parties pleaded an enforceable agreement, and did not properly consider whether the facts were distinguishable from Cobbe v Yeoman's Row. There was an arguable defence that required a trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Summary judgment set aside
  • Parties to consider amendments to pleadings