Greenridge Luton One Ltd & Anor v Kempton Investments Ltd

Greenridge Luton One Ltd & Anor v Kempton Investments Ltd

The claimants were induced to enter the contract by misrepresentations regarding the absence of service charge arrears, which were made at least recklessly by the defendant’s agents. This entitled the claimants to rescind the contract and recover their deposit under Condition 9.1.3(a) of the Standard Commercial...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Greenridge Luton One Limited; Claimant: Greenridge Luton Two Limited; Defendant: Kempton Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Property/contract) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Breach of Warranty, Rescission, Damages, Fraud, Commercial Property Sale, Service Charge Disputes
Contract Law Property Law Misrepresentation Breach of Warranty Rescission Damages Fraud Commercial Property Sale +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greenridge Luton One Limited

Claimant

Greenridge Luton Two Limited

Claimant

Kempton Investments Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Property/contract) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were untrue representations made to the claimants in the negotiations or contract?
  2. 2 Was the claimant induced to enter the contract by misrepresentations?
  3. 3 Were the misrepresentations fraudulent or reckless?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants were induced to enter the contract by misrepresentations regarding the absence of service charge arrears, which were made at least recklessly by the defendant’s agents. This entitled the claimants to rescind the contract and recover their deposit under Condition 9.1.3(a) of the Standard Commercial Property Conditions. The claimants were also entitled to damages for deceit, as the misrepresentation was fraudulent or reckless.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants

Orders

  • The defendant shall return the deposit of £812,500 to the claimants.
  • The defendant shall pay damages of £395,948 to the claimants.