Merer v Fisher & Anor

Merer v Fisher & Anor

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; thus, Mrs Merer was not a purchaser for value 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 proper order is for specific performance according to the contract's terms.

Parties
Appellant: Eileen Mary Merer; Respondents: Robert Owen Fisher & Judith Fisher
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
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, Specific Performance, Land Charges Act 1925, Purchaser for Value, Consideration, Remedies in Contract
Land Law Equity Contract Law Right of Pre Emption Specific Performance Land Charges Act 1925 Purchaser for Value Consideration +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eileen Mary Merer

Appellant

Robert Owen Fisher & Judith Fisher

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

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 Appropriate remedy for breach of pre-emption right

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; thus, Mrs Merer was not a purchaser for value 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 proper order is for specific performance according to the contract's terms.

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 terms of the contract for pre-emption right
  • Appellant to pay respondents' costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment