Connolly Ltd. v Bellway Homes Ltd. [2007] EWHC 895 (Ch) (23 April 2007)

Connolly Ltd. v Bellway Homes Ltd. [2007] EWHC 895 (Ch) (23 April 2007)

The court held that the contract accurately reflected the parties' intentions regarding both the indexation formula and the £212 base figure. There was no mutual mistake, as Bellway intended the formula and figure as drafted. There was no unilateral mistake because both parties intended the inclusion of £212, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 895 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Connolly Limited; Defendant: Bellway Homes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
All claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Rectification, Unilateral Mistake, Mutual Mistake, Deceit, Misrepresentation, Sale of Land, Commercial Contracts
Contract Law Equity Rectification Unilateral Mistake Mutual Mistake Deceit Misrepresentation Sale of Land +1 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Connolly Limited

Claimant

Bellway Homes Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract should be rectified for mutual mistake regarding the indexation formula and/or the base figure (£212) in the sale contract.
  2. 2 Whether Connolly is entitled to rectification for unilateral mistake regarding the £212 figure.
  3. 3 Whether Bellway is liable in deceit for alleged misrepresentation of the average sales price per square foot.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the contract accurately reflected the parties' intentions regarding both the indexation formula and the £212 base figure. There was no mutual mistake, as Bellway intended the formula and figure as drafted. There was no unilateral mistake because both parties intended the inclusion of £212, and any error by Connolly was an error of judgment, not of fact. The claim in deceit failed because the court found that Bellway's representative did not make a false representation with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness; the figure proposed was honestly believed to be appropriate based on available information. Accordingly, all claims for rectification and deceit were dismissed.

Court Disposition

All claims dismissed.