MP Kemp Ltd v Bullen Developments Ltd

MP Kemp Ltd v Bullen Developments Ltd

The alleged oral variation was unenforceable for want of writing as it was a material variation affecting price, a fundamental term. The estoppel claims, being tantamount to a variation, were also barred by section 2. The expert determination clause was wide enough to encompass the estoppel claims, and thus the dispute should be determined by the expert, not the Court. Accordingly, the proceedings were stayed and the injunction discharged.

Parties
Claimant: MP Kemp Limited; Defendant: Bullen Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/contract) / Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Injunction; Application to Stay Proceedings
Outcome
Proceedings stayed; injunction discharged
Legal Topics
Expert Determination Clauses, Variation of Contract, Estoppel, Injunctions, Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Expert Determination Clauses Variation of Contract Estoppel Injunctions Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MP Kemp Limited

Claimant

Bullen Developments Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/contract) / Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Injunction; Application to Stay Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged oral variation of the Option Agreement is valid and enforceable under section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether the estoppel claims fall within the scope of the expert determination clause (clause 24)
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings should be stayed in favour of expert determination

Ratio Decidendi

The alleged oral variation was unenforceable for want of writing as it was a material variation affecting price, a fundamental term. The estoppel claims, being tantamount to a variation, were also barred by section 2. The expert determination clause was wide enough to encompass the estoppel claims, and thus the dispute should be determined by the expert, not the Court. Accordingly, the proceedings were stayed and the injunction discharged.

Court Disposition

Proceedings stayed; injunction discharged

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings granted in favour of expert determination under clause 24
  • Injunction granted by Sales J on 16 April 2014 discharged