Merer v Fisher & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 747 (13 May 2003)

Merer v Fisher & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 747 (13 May 2003)

The trial judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that there was no agreement that the consideration for the transfer to Mrs Merer was the release of debts owed by the company to Mr Merer; therefore, Mrs Merer was not a purchaser for money or money's worth and the right of pre-emption was enforceable against her. The judge's order for specific performance at a fixed price was not justified; the contract terms for valuation should be followed.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 747
Parties
Appellant: Eileen Mary Merer; Respondents: Robert Owen Fisher & Judith Fisher
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Chancery Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed on the first issue (factual finding on consideration); appeal allowed on the third issue (remedy); second issue did not arise.
Legal Topics
Right of Pre Emption, Land Charges Act 1925, Specific Performance, Consideration, Purchaser for Value, Remedies in Equity
Property Law Equity and Trusts Right of Pre Emption Land Charges Act 1925 Specific Performance Consideration Purchaser for Value Remedies in Equity

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eileen Mary Merer

Appellant

Robert Owen Fisher & Judith Fisher

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Chancery Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the right of pre-emption was enforceable against Mrs Merer
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Merer was a purchaser for money or money's worth under section 4(6) of the Land Charges Act 1925
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in finding that no consideration was given for the transfer to Mrs Merer

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that there was no agreement that the consideration for the transfer to Mrs Merer was the release of debts owed by the company to Mr Merer; therefore, Mrs Merer was not a purchaser for money or money's worth and the right of pre-emption was enforceable against her. The judge's order for specific performance at a fixed price was not justified; the contract terms for valuation should be followed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed on the first issue (factual finding on consideration); appeal allowed on the third issue (remedy); second issue did not arise.

Orders

  • Specific performance of the pre-emption right ordered in accordance with the contract terms, not at a fixed price of £11,000.
  • Appellant to pay respondents' costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment.