Oakley & Ors v Harper MckAy Developments Ltd

Oakley & Ors v Harper MckAy Developments Ltd

The claimants were entitled to rescind the contract because they were ready, willing and able to complete when serving notice to complete; the defendant waived the right to insist on assignment rather than licence of copyright, and the claimants were not in breach regarding access. The defendant's inability to complete was not caused by any breach of contract by the claimants.

Parties
Claimant: Robert James Oakley; Claimant: Carolyn Oakley; Claimant: Jonathan Mark Page; Claimant: Union Pension Trustees Limited; Claimant: Morgan Lloyd Trustees Limited; Defendant: Harper McKay Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (property/contract) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; contract rescinded; counterclaim dismissed; unilateral notice removed.
Legal Topics
Rescission of Contract, Assignment of Copyright, Access to Property, Waiver of Contractual Rights, Summary Judgment, Unilateral Notice, Breach of Contract
Property Law Contract Law Rescission of Contract Assignment of Copyright Access to Property Waiver of Contractual Rights Summary Judgment Unilateral Notice +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

Robert James Oakley

Claimant

Carolyn Oakley

Claimant

Jonathan Mark Page

Claimant

Union Pension Trustees Limited

Claimant

Morgan Lloyd Trustees Limited

Claimant

Harper McKay Developments Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (property/contract) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were entitled to rescind the contract for sale of property for failure to complete
  2. 2 Whether the claimants were ready, willing and able to complete when serving notice to complete
  3. 3 Whether the claimants breached the contract by failing to provide copyright assignments or access to the property

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants were entitled to rescind the contract because they were ready, willing and able to complete when serving notice to complete; the defendant waived the right to insist on assignment rather than licence of copyright, and the claimants were not in breach regarding access. The defendant's inability to complete was not caused by any breach of contract by the claimants.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; contract rescinded; counterclaim dismissed; unilateral notice removed.

Orders

  • Declaration that the contract was not varied to provide for a completion date later than 7 September 2015.
  • Declaration that the claimants were not required by clause 18.1 to assign intellectual property rights before completion.