Akzo Nobel UK Ltd v Arista Tubes Ltd [2009] EWHC 497 (Ch) (19 March 2009)

Akzo Nobel UK Ltd v Arista Tubes Ltd [2009] EWHC 497 (Ch) (19 March 2009)

Once a valid notice under paragraph 11 of Schedule 7 of the BPA is served, neither party can require completion of the underleases; the obligation to complete cannot arise after such notice, and the defendant is justified in not completing the underleases.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 497 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: AKZO NOBEL UK LIMITED; Defendant: ARISTA TUBES LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Specific Performance Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Construction of Contractual Clauses, Termination of Contractual Obligations, Underleases, Notices to Terminate
Contract Law Property Law Specific Performance Construction of Contractual Clauses Termination of Contractual Obligations Underleases Notices to Terminate

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AKZO NOBEL UK LIMITED

Claimant

ARISTA TUBES LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Specific Performance Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of a valid notice under paragraph 11 of Schedule 7 of the BPA precludes the obligation to complete underleases
  2. 2 Whether the claimant can obtain specific performance of the agreement to grant underleases after such notice

Ratio Decidendi

Once a valid notice under paragraph 11 of Schedule 7 of the BPA is served, neither party can require completion of the underleases; the obligation to complete cannot arise after such notice, and the defendant is justified in not completing the underleases.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Action for specific performance of the agreement to take the underleases is dismissed.