Gibbs v Lakeside Developments Ltd

Gibbs v Lakeside Developments Ltd

A tenant cannot recover proceeds of sale of property on the basis of unjust enrichment without first setting aside the possession order, even if third party rights have intervened. The order remains binding and effective until set aside, and the correct procedure is to seek to set aside the order before pursuing restitutionary claims.

Parties
Appellant: Carolyn Gibbs; Respondent: Lakeside Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court at Central London
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Lease, Relief Against Forfeiture, Unjust Enrichment, Possession Orders, Service of Process

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 2 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carolyn Gibbs

Appellant

Lakeside Developments Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court at Central London

  1. 1 Whether a tenant can recover proceeds of sale of property on the basis of unjust enrichment without first setting aside a possession order made without proper service
  2. 2 Whether an exception exists to the general rule where third party rights have intervened preventing the setting aside of the order

Ratio Decidendi

A tenant cannot recover proceeds of sale of property on the basis of unjust enrichment without first setting aside the possession order, even if third party rights have intervened. The order remains binding and effective until set aside, and the correct procedure is to seek to set aside the order before pursuing restitutionary claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no relief granted to appellant