Singh v Redford [2018] EWHC 2390 (Ch) (07 September 2018)

Singh v Redford [2018] EWHC 2390 (Ch) (07 September 2018)

No binding contract was formed between the parties; payments were made in anticipation of a contract that never materialised; defendant was unjustly enriched and must make restitution of the balance paid; payments made by defendant to claimant were made under duress and are not recoverable by the claimant.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2390 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Gurdip Singh; Defendant: Mr George Albert Redford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim for restitution allowed; counterclaim for duress payments dismissed.
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Unjust Enrichment, Sale of Business, Leasehold Interests, Duress, Planning Permission
Contract Law Restitution Property Law Formation of Contract Unjust Enrichment Sale of Business Leasehold Interests Duress +1 more

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Gurdip Singh

Claimant

Mr George Albert Redford

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract for the sale of the business was formed
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was unjustly enriched by payments made by the claimant
  3. 3 Whether payments made by the defendant to the claimant were made under duress

Ratio Decidendi

No binding contract was formed between the parties; payments were made in anticipation of a contract that never materialised; defendant was unjustly enriched and must make restitution of the balance paid; payments made by defendant to claimant were made under duress and are not recoverable by the claimant.

Court Disposition

Claim for restitution allowed; counterclaim for duress payments dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant £139,800 as restitution.
  • Counterclaim for £6,600, £20,200, £4,300, and £750 dismissed.