Oakley & Ors v Harper MckAy Developments Ltd [2018] EWHC 3405 (Ch) (10 December 2018)

Oakley & Ors v Harper MckAy Developments Ltd [2018] EWHC 3405 (Ch) (10 December 2018)

The Claimants were entitled to rescind the contract as they were ready, willing and able to complete when serving notice to complete; the Defendant had waived its right to insist on assignment rather than licence of copyright, and the Claimants' actions did not constitute breach of contract regarding access or copyright assignment.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3405 (Ch)
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
Chancery Division Property, Trusts and Probate / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; contract rescinded; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Rescission of Contract, Assignment of Copyright, Completion of Sale, Waiver, Notice to Complete, Specific Performance, Summary Judgment
Property Law Contract Law Trusts Law Rescission of Contract Assignment of Copyright Completion of Sale Waiver Notice to Complete +2 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 10 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

Chancery Division Property, Trusts and Probate / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were the Claimants entitled to rescind the contract for sale of Norfolk House?
  2. 2 Were the Claimants ready, willing and able to complete when serving notice to complete?
  3. 3 Did the Claimants breach clause 14.1 by failing to provide access?

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants were entitled to rescind the contract as they were ready, willing and able to complete when serving notice to complete; the Defendant had waived its right to insist on assignment rather than licence of copyright, and the Claimants' actions did not constitute breach of contract regarding access or copyright assignment.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; contract rescinded; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that contract was not varied to provide for completion after 7 September 2015.
  • Declaration that Claimants were not required to assign intellectual property rights before completion.