Falmouth House Ltd & Anor v Rahmizadeh & Ors

Falmouth House Ltd & Anor v Rahmizadeh & Ors

Mr Davies was asked to perform the contractual function under clause 3.3.1 of the Participation Agreements to apportion the Price between participating tenants in October 2003, and he did so. This constituted a valid and binding determination. It is not open to the Nominee Purchaser to invite Mr Davies to carry out...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Falmouth House Limited; Claimant: Falmouth House Freehold Company Limited; Defendant: Lidouch Rahmizadeh; Defendant: Dr Siavashe Mohanna; Defendant: Maryam Khabiri Mohanna; Defendant: Dr Pari-Naz Mohanna
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal and Cross Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
cross-appeal allowed, appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Collective Enfranchisement, Leasehold Apportionment, Expert Determination, Estoppel
Contract Property Collective Enfranchisement Leasehold Apportionment Expert Determination Estoppel

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Falmouth House Limited

Claimant

Falmouth House Freehold Company Limited

Claimant

Lidouch Rahmizadeh

Defendant

Dr Siavashe Mohanna

Defendant

Maryam Khabiri Mohanna

Defendant

Dr Pari-Naz Mohanna

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal and Cross Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there a valid determination of the Leaseholder’s Contribution to the Price under clause 3.3.1 of the Participation Agreements in October 2003?
  2. 2 Is the Nominee Purchaser estopped from denying such determination?
  3. 3 Was there a valid determination in April 2005?

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Davies was asked to perform the contractual function under clause 3.3.1 of the Participation Agreements to apportion the Price between participating tenants in October 2003, and he did so. This constituted a valid and binding determination. It is not open to the Nominee Purchaser to invite Mr Davies to carry out a second apportionment of the same Price. The cross-appeal is allowed and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

cross-appeal allowed, appeal dismissed

Orders

  • October 2003 determination by Mr Davies is valid and binding under clause 3.3.1.
  • Nominee Purchaser cannot demand further sums based on April 2005 figures.