Eminence Property Developments Ltd. v Heaney [2010] EWCA Civ 1168 (21 October 2010)

Eminence Property Developments Ltd. v Heaney [2010] EWCA Civ 1168 (21 October 2010)

The Court of Appeal held that Eminence's premature rescission notices, served under an honest and obvious mistake regarding the expiry of the notice to complete, did not constitute a repudiatory breach of contract. Objectively, a reasonable person in Heaney's position would have understood the mistake and Eminence's intention to enforce the contract, not abandon it. The conduct did not evince an intention to refuse performance altogether, and therefore Heaney was not entitled to accept the rescission as repudiation.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 1168
Parties
Appellant: Eminence Property Developments Ltd; Respondent: Kevin Christopher Heaney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Repudiatory Breach, Notice to Complete, Rescission of Contract, Forfeiture of Deposit, Objective Assessment of Repudiation
Contract Law Property Law Repudiatory Breach Notice to Complete Rescission of Contract Forfeiture of Deposit Objective Assessment of Repudiation

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eminence Property Developments Ltd

Appellant

Kevin Christopher Heaney

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether premature rescission by the vendor constituted a repudiatory breach entitling the purchaser to terminate the contract
  2. 2 Whether an honest mistake in calculation of completion date affects repudiatory breach
  3. 3 Objective assessment of repudiatory conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that Eminence's premature rescission notices, served under an honest and obvious mistake regarding the expiry of the notice to complete, did not constitute a repudiatory breach of contract. Objectively, a reasonable person in Heaney's position would have understood the mistake and Eminence's intention to enforce the contract, not abandon it. The conduct did not evince an intention to refuse performance altogether, and therefore Heaney was not entitled to accept the rescission as repudiation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The preliminary issue is answered in favour of Eminence; Eminence did not commit a repudiatory breach by premature rescission.
  • The parties are not discharged from future performance of their obligations under the contracts.