MP Kemp Ltd v Bullen Developments Ltd [2014] EWHC 2009 (Ch) (21 May 2014)

MP Kemp Ltd v Bullen Developments Ltd [2014] EWHC 2009 (Ch) (21 May 2014)

The oral variation alleged by the Claimant was ineffective as it was not in writing and concerned a material term (the price) of a contract for the sale of land. The estoppel claims advanced by the Claimant fell within the scope of the expert determination clause, which covered 'any dispute arising out of this agreement.' Therefore, the court proceedings should be stayed and the injunction discharged to allow the expert determination to proceed.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2009 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: MP Kemp Limited; Defendant: Bullen Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application (interlocutory) in Contractual Dispute / Return Date Hearing for Continuation/discharge of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Injunction discharged; proceedings stayed to allow expert determination to proceed.
Legal Topics
Expert Determination Clauses, Variation of Contract, Estoppel, Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Jurisdiction of Expert Vs Court, Interlocutory Injunctions
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Expert Determination Clauses Variation of Contract Estoppel Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 Jurisdiction of Expert Vs Court +1 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MP Kemp Limited

Claimant

Bullen Developments Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application (interlocutory) in Contractual Dispute / Return Date Hearing for Continuation/discharge of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral variation of a material term of a contract for the sale of land is effective under section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether estoppel claims fall within the scope of the expert determination clause
  3. 3 Whether the court should stay proceedings and discharge the injunction to allow expert determination to proceed

Ratio Decidendi

The oral variation alleged by the Claimant was ineffective as it was not in writing and concerned a material term (the price) of a contract for the sale of land. The estoppel claims advanced by the Claimant fell within the scope of the expert determination clause, which covered 'any dispute arising out of this agreement.' Therefore, the court proceedings should be stayed and the injunction discharged to allow the expert determination to proceed.

Court Disposition

Injunction discharged; proceedings stayed to allow expert determination to proceed.

Orders

  • The interlocutory injunction granted on 16 April 2014 is discharged.
  • The court proceedings are stayed pending the outcome of the expert determination.