Shill Properties Ltd v Bunch [2023] EWHC 2135 (Ch) (25 August 2023)

Shill Properties Ltd v Bunch [2023] EWHC 2135 (Ch) (25 August 2023)

There was no valid exchange of contracts because the claimant's solicitor did not hold a signed contract at the time of the purported exchange, failing to comply with s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. Alternatively, the contract was procured by fraudulent misrepresentation as to the claimant being a 'cash buyer', entitling the defendant to set aside the contract.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2135 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Shill Properties Limited; Defendant: Anne Bunch
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Claim for Specific Performance of Contract for Sale of Land / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Sale of Land, Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Undue Influence, Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Capacity, Contract Formation
Property Law Contract Law Specific Performance Sale of Land Misrepresentation Fraudulent Misrepresentation Undue Influence Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 +2 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shill Properties Limited

Claimant

Anne Bunch

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim for Specific Performance of Contract for Sale of Land / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a valid exchange of contracts under s.2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether the contract is void for non-compliance with statutory requirements
  3. 3 Whether the claimant made a fraudulent misrepresentation as to being a 'cash buyer'

Ratio Decidendi

There was no valid exchange of contracts because the claimant's solicitor did not hold a signed contract at the time of the purported exchange, failing to comply with s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. Alternatively, the contract was procured by fraudulent misrepresentation as to the claimant being a 'cash buyer', entitling the defendant to set aside the contract.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for specific performance dismissed
  • No order for specific performance of the contract