Ezekiel & Anor v Kohali & Anor [2008] EWHC 734 (Ch) (11 April 2008)

Ezekiel & Anor v Kohali & Anor [2008] EWHC 734 (Ch) (11 April 2008)

The Defendants were contractually obliged to show good title to all land agreed to be sold, including the entirety of the Access Strip. The Claimants did not have actual knowledge prior to the September Agreement that the Defendants' title was limited to the three registered titles and did not extend to the whole of the Access Strip. The Defendants represented ownership of the whole Site, and the Claimants relied on that representation. The Defendants cannot grant the full rights contracted for, so specific performance with abatement is appropriate.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 734 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Freddy Jacob Ezekiel; Claimant: Menashi Mark David Ezekiel; Defendant: David Kohali; Defendant: Haim Kohali
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Contract/property Dispute / Trial of Liability Only
Outcome
Specific performance with abatement of purchase price ordered in favour of Claimants; Defendants' counterclaim for specific performance without abatement dismissed.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Good Title in Land Sale, Misrepresentation, Easements and Rights of Way, Abatement of Purchase Price, Breach of Contract
Property Law Contract Law Equity Specific Performance Good Title in Land Sale Misrepresentation Easements and Rights of Way Abatement of Purchase Price +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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Freddy Jacob Ezekiel

Claimant

Menashi Mark David Ezekiel

Claimant

David Kohali

Defendant

Haim Kohali

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Contract/property Dispute / Trial of Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Plot A included the entirety of the Access Strip
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants contracted to sell Plot C with vehicular right of way and easements for services over Plot A, including the Access Road
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants had title to grant such rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants were contractually obliged to show good title to all land agreed to be sold, including the entirety of the Access Strip. The Claimants did not have actual knowledge prior to the September Agreement that the Defendants' title was limited to the three registered titles and did not extend to the whole of the Access Strip. The Defendants represented ownership of the whole Site, and the Claimants relied on that representation. The Defendants cannot grant the full rights contracted for, so specific performance with abatement is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Specific performance with abatement of purchase price ordered in favour of Claimants; Defendants' counterclaim for specific performance without abatement dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to specifically perform the September Agreement for sale of Plots A and C to Claimants, subject to abatement of purchase price reflecting inability to convey full title and rights.
  • Assessment of quantum of abatement and/or damages reserved for further determination if not agreed.