Graham & Ors v Mayrick

Graham & Ors v Mayrick

The College had good possessory title to the Rear land, the contract sufficiently identified the land to be transferred, and no misrepresentation occurred. The appellant had no real prospect of success at trial, and the summary judgment for specific performance was correct.

Parties
Respondents: Sir Alexander Michael Graham GBE DCL, Alderman Sir Paul Henry Newall TD DL MA DLITT, Sir Christopher Rupert Walford MA DCL, Sir Christopher Colett GBE MA DSc, Alderman Sir Alan Traill GEE QSO MS DMus, Sire Leo and John Chalstrey MA MD FRCS, Alderman Sir Clive Martin OBE TD DL, Alderman Sir Michael Oliver LLD, Alderman Robert Gerard Finch (Trustees of the Charity of Sir John Morden) (Known as Morden College); Appellant: Brian Mayrick
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment (specific Performance of Contract)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Adverse Possession, Misrepresentation, Certainty of Subject Matter, Summary Judgment
Property Law Contract Law Specific Performance Adverse Possession Misrepresentation Certainty of Subject Matter Summary Judgment

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sir Alexander Michael Graham GBE DCL, Alderman Sir Paul Henry Newall TD DL MA DLITT, Sir Christopher Rupert Walford MA DCL, Sir Christopher Colett GBE MA DSc, Alderman Sir Alan Traill GEE QSO MS DMus, Sire Leo and John Chalstrey MA MD FRCS, Alderman Sir Clive Martin OBE TD DL, Alderman Sir Michael Oliver LLD, Alderman Robert Gerard Finch (Trustees of the Charity of Sir John Morden) (Known as Morden College)

Respondents

Brian Mayrick

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment (specific Performance of Contract)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the College had good title to the Rear land for the purposes of the contract
  2. 2 Whether the College could force a possessory title on the appellant under the contract
  3. 3 Whether the contract sufficiently identified the land to be transferred to satisfy section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

Ratio Decidendi

The College had good possessory title to the Rear land, the contract sufficiently identified the land to be transferred, and no misrepresentation occurred. The appellant had no real prospect of success at trial, and the summary judgment for specific performance was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment for specific performance stands
  • Appellant to comply with contract for transfer of land as per original plan