Themis Avraamides & Anor v Colwill & Anor

Themis Avraamides & Anor v Colwill & Anor

The appeal was allowed because the respondents were not expressly identified as third parties in the transfer agreement as required by section 1(3) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, and thus could not enforce the agreement's terms against the appellants.

Parties
Respondent: Themis Avraamides; Respondent: Emma Maitland; Appellant: Mark Colwill; Appellant: Stephen Martin t/a Bathroom Trading Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Issue Determination
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Third Party Rights, Contracts (rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, Contract Construction, Liability for Company Debts
Contract Law Civil Procedure Third Party Rights Contracts (rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 Contract Construction Liability for Company Debts

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Themis Avraamides

Respondent

Emma Maitland

Respondent

Mark Colwill

Appellant

Stephen Martin t/a Bathroom Trading Company

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Issue Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are entitled to enforce the transfer agreement under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are expressly identified as third parties under section 1(3) of the 1999 Act
  3. 3 Whether the liabilities in question were 'properly incurred' and thus benefit the respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the respondents were not expressly identified as third parties in the transfer agreement as required by section 1(3) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, and thus could not enforce the agreement's terms against the appellants.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the respondents on the preliminary issue set aside
  • Respondents not entitled to enforce the transfer agreement under the 1999 Act