Pirhayati v Rowshanian

Pirhayati v Rowshanian

The claimant was not entitled to recover the purchase price as consideration had not wholly failed; he remained in occupation and received substantial benefit. Damages were properly assessed by offsetting the outstanding purchase price against the compensation for loss of LTA 1954 rights, and the judge was entitled to use the contractual rent rate for use and occupation. The costs order was within the judge's discretion given the outcome.

Parties
Claimant: Hossein Pirhayati; Defendant: Iraj Rowshanian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Both applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Failure of Consideration, Damages Assessment, Specific Performance, Use and Occupation, Costs Orders
Contract Law Landlord and Tenant Law Failure of Consideration Damages Assessment Specific Performance Use and Occupation Costs Orders

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hossein Pirhayati

Claimant

Iraj Rowshanian

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was entitled to recover the purchase price as consideration for a transaction which had wholly failed
  2. 2 Proper assessment of damages in lieu of specific performance
  3. 3 Entitlement to damages for use and occupation and at what rate

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not entitled to recover the purchase price as consideration had not wholly failed; he remained in occupation and received substantial benefit. Damages were properly assessed by offsetting the outstanding purchase price against the compensation for loss of LTA 1954 rights, and the judge was entitled to use the contractual rent rate for use and occupation. The costs order was within the judge's discretion given the outcome.

Court Disposition

Both applications for permission to appeal refused