Manek v Sintl Ventures Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 600 (Ch) (15 January 2026)

Manek v Sintl Ventures Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 600 (Ch) (15 January 2026)

The first defendant breached the contract by failing to complete, entitling the claimant to rescind and retain the deposit. The first defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim regarding unilateral notices, has no equitable lien as the deposit was held by a stakeholder, and must withdraw the remaining unilateral notice applications. The claimant is entitled to an injunction restraining further interference and to indemnity costs due to the defendants' unreasonable conduct.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 600 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Niranjali Manek; First Defendant: SINTL Ventures Ltd; Second Defendant: Muhammad Haroon Saeed
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Summary Judgment and Interim Injunction Applications; Extension of Time for Defence
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in part for the claimant; interim injunction granted; extension application dismissed; costs awarded to claimant on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Injunctions, Unilateral Notices, Repudiation of Contract, Deposit and Equitable Lien, Costs Assessment
Property Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Injunctions Unilateral Notices Repudiation of Contract Deposit and Equitable Lien +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Niranjali Manek

Claimant

SINTL Ventures Ltd

First Defendant

Muhammad Haroon Saeed

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Summary Judgment and Interim Injunction Applications; Extension of Time for Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to summary judgment requiring withdrawal of unilateral notice applications by the first defendant
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the sale of the property
  3. 3 Whether the defendants are entitled to an extension of time to file a defence

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant breached the contract by failing to complete, entitling the claimant to rescind and retain the deposit. The first defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim regarding unilateral notices, has no equitable lien as the deposit was held by a stakeholder, and must withdraw the remaining unilateral notice applications. The claimant is entitled to an injunction restraining further interference and to indemnity costs due to the defendants' unreasonable conduct.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in part for the claimant; interim injunction granted; extension application dismissed; costs awarded to claimant on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • First defendant to withdraw two extant unilateral notice applications by 4pm, 23 January 2026
  • Injunction restraining defendants from applying for further notices against the property arising from the rescinded contract