Orton v Collins & Ors

Orton v Collins & Ors

A Part 36 settlement, even if it involves the disposition of an interest in land and does not comply with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, is enforceable by the court under its inherent jurisdiction and the regime of Part 36. The obligation is sui generis and not dependent on contract law. The court may order the parties to sign a single document incorporating the terms of the settlement.

Parties
Claimant: Kim Andrew Orton; Defendant: John Brook Collins; Defendant: Martyn Richard Hudson; Defendant: Simon Jonathan Nethercott; Defendant: Alan John Charles Griffiths; Defendant: Alan Stuart Fairley; Defendant: Ian Michael Newcombe; Defendant: David Harold Phillips; Defendant: Anju Kalia; Defendant: Nicola Lowe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision on Preliminary Point
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Disposition of Interest in Land, Settlement Agreements, Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
Civil Procedure Property Law Part 36 Offers Disposition of Interest in Land Settlement Agreements Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

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

Parties

Kim Andrew Orton

Claimant

John Brook Collins

Defendant

Martyn Richard Hudson

Defendant

Simon Jonathan Nethercott

Defendant

Alan John Charles Griffiths

Defendant

Alan Stuart Fairley

Defendant

Ian Michael Newcombe

Defendant

David Harold Phillips

Defendant

Anju Kalia

Defendant

Nicola Lowe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision on Preliminary Point

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does acceptance of a Part 36 offer involving disposition of an interest in land require compliance with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989?
  2. 2 Can a Part 36 settlement be enforced if it does not constitute a contract under section 2 of the 1989 Act?

Ratio Decidendi

A Part 36 settlement, even if it involves the disposition of an interest in land and does not comply with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, is enforceable by the court under its inherent jurisdiction and the regime of Part 36. The obligation is sui generis and not dependent on contract law. The court may order the parties to sign a single document incorporating the terms of the settlement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed; the settlement is enforceable subject to the separate point about mistake, rectification or rescission, which is to be decided elsewhere.
  • The court has power to order the parties to sign a single document incorporating the terms of the settlement.