Singh & Anor v Sanghera & Ors

Singh & Anor v Sanghera & Ors

The contract for sale of the business and lease was void under section 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, entitling claimants to restitution of £60,000 paid to Anjali for total failure of consideration, but not to damages for wrongful eviction or breach of contract; defendants were not liable for wrongful eviction, but Baljit liable for limited wrongful interference with goods.

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 / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed except for restitution and limited damages inquiry.
Legal Topics
Void Contract, Unjust Enrichment, Lease Assignment, Wrongful Eviction, Constructive Trust, Periodical Tenancy, Restitutionary Remedy, Interference With Goods
Contract Law Property Law Restitution Landlord and Tenant Void Contract Unjust Enrichment Lease Assignment 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 8
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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract for sale of business and lease was void under section 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether claimants were entitled to damages for wrongful eviction
  3. 3 Whether claimants could recover sums paid under a void contract

Ratio Decidendi

The contract for sale of the business and lease was void under section 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, entitling claimants to restitution of £60,000 paid to Anjali for total failure of consideration, but not to damages for wrongful eviction or breach of contract; defendants were not liable for wrongful eviction, but Baljit liable for limited wrongful interference with goods.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed except for restitution and limited damages inquiry.

Orders

  • Claimants entitled to restitution of £60,000 from Anjali Enterprises Limited, subject to account and inquiry.
  • Account and inquiry ordered as to benefits received by claimants and damages for wrongful interference with goods by Baljit.