Singh & Anor v Sanghera & Ors [2013] EWHC 956 (Ch) (22 April 2013)

Singh & Anor v Sanghera & Ors [2013] EWHC 956 (Ch) (22 April 2013)

The contract for sale of the business and lease was void under section 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989; claimants are entitled to restitution of £60,000 paid to Anjali for total failure of consideration; eviction was lawful as claimants had no lease or statutory protection; claim for wrongful interference with goods succeeds only in respect of stock, scratch cards, and telephone cards retained by Baljit; account and inquiry ordered to determine sums due between parties.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 956 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Kashmir Singh; Claimant: Nirmala Devi; Defendant: Baljit Singh Sanghera; Defendant: Gurdial Singh; Defendant: Gurmit Kaur; Defendant: Amarjit Singh Sanghera; Defendant: Anjali Enterprises Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claims against Baljit, Gurmit, Gurdial, and Amarjit dismissed except limited damages inquiry against Baljit; claimants entitled to restitution of £60,000 from Anjali; account and inquiry ordered to determine sums due between parties; Anjali's counterclaim reserved for account and inquiry.
Legal Topics
Void Contract, Constructive Trust, Periodical Tenancy, Wrongful Eviction, Unjust Enrichment, Restitution, Lease Assignment, Forfeiture, Wrongful Interference With Goods
Property Law Contract Law Restitution Landlord and Tenant Void Contract Constructive Trust Periodical Tenancy Wrongful Eviction +4 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kashmir Singh

Claimant

Nirmala Devi

Claimant

Baljit Singh Sanghera

Defendant

Gurdial Singh

Defendant

Gurmit Kaur

Defendant

Amarjit Singh Sanghera

Defendant

Anjali Enterprises Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract for sale of the supermarket business and lease was void under section 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether a constructive trust or periodical tenancy arose
  3. 3 Whether the eviction was unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The contract for sale of the business and lease was void under section 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989; claimants are entitled to restitution of £60,000 paid to Anjali for total failure of consideration; eviction was lawful as claimants had no lease or statutory protection; claim for wrongful interference with goods succeeds only in respect of stock, scratch cards, and telephone cards retained by Baljit; account and inquiry ordered to determine sums due between parties.

Court Disposition

Claims against Baljit, Gurmit, Gurdial, and Amarjit dismissed except limited damages inquiry against Baljit; claimants entitled to restitution of £60,000 from Anjali; account and inquiry ordered to determine sums due between parties; Anjali's counterclaim reserved for account and inquiry.

Orders

  • Inquiry as to damages for wrongful interference with stock, scratch cards, and telephone cards against Baljit.
  • Account and inquiry to determine sums due between Kashmir/Nirmala and Anjali.