Jones & Anor v McCarthy [2022] EWHC 2186 (Ch) (17 August 2022)

Jones & Anor v McCarthy [2022] EWHC 2186 (Ch) (17 August 2022)

Mr McCarthy breached the 2008 oral agreement by revoking the power of attorney, reinstating it in favour of a third party, and selling the villa without Mr Jones' direction. The applicable law for contractual remedies is Spanish law, and claimants are limited to contractual damages, not equitable remedies. There was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2186 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: William Allan Jones; Claimant: Ludlow Street Investment Corp; Defendant: Andrew McCarthy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (contractual Dispute) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim for breach of contract succeeds; claimants entitled to damages; equitable remedies refused.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Remedies for Breach, Applicable Law, Constructive Trust, Account of Profits, Damages, Oral Agreements, Property Transfer
Contract Law Equity Private International Law Breach of Contract Remedies for Breach Applicable Law Constructive Trust Account of Profits +3 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

William Allan Jones

Claimant

Ludlow Street Investment Corp

Claimant

Andrew McCarthy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contractual Dispute) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2008 oral agreement between Mr Jones and Mr McCarthy was breached by Mr McCarthy
  2. 2 Whether claimants are entitled to damages or equitable remedies for breach of the 2008 agreement
  3. 3 Whether the applicable law for equitable remedies is English or Spanish law

Ratio Decidendi

Mr McCarthy breached the 2008 oral agreement by revoking the power of attorney, reinstating it in favour of a third party, and selling the villa without Mr Jones' direction. The applicable law for contractual remedies is Spanish law, and claimants are limited to contractual damages, not equitable remedies. There was no novation or transfer of beneficial interest to Mr Proctor with Mr Jones' consent.

Court Disposition

Claim for breach of contract succeeds; claimants entitled to damages; equitable remedies refused.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimants damages for breach of contract, assessed as the market value of the villa at the time of sale less the value of the yacht received.
  • Claimants' claims for account of profits and constructive trust dismissed.