Davies & Ors v Jones & Anor

Davies & Ors v Jones & Anor

There was no evidence that Mr Jones had control over the retention monies after completion or that Bevan Ashford acted as his agent. The claim against Mr Jones had no real prospect of success as he was not responsible for the ₤100,000 retention monies, and no Quistclose Trust arose.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Davies & Ors; Respondent: Jones & Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Retention of Purchase Monies, Agency, Summary Judgment, Quistclose Trust, Sale of Land
Contract Law Trusts Retention of Purchase Monies Agency Summary Judgment Quistclose Trust Sale of Land

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Davies & Ors

Appellant

Jones & Anr

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant (Mr Jones) was liable for breach of contract or trust regarding the retention monies under clause 18 of the sale and purchase agreement
  2. 2 Whether Bevan Ashford acted as agent for Mr Jones in receiving the retention monies
  3. 3 Whether a Quistclose Trust arose over the retention monies

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that Mr Jones had control over the retention monies after completion or that Bevan Ashford acted as his agent. The claim against Mr Jones had no real prospect of success as he was not responsible for the ₤100,000 retention monies, and no Quistclose Trust arose.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is refused