Sukhlall v Bansoodeb [2013] EWHC 952 (Ch) (10 April 2013)

Sukhlall v Bansoodeb [2013] EWHC 952 (Ch) (10 April 2013)

The court held that the alleged collateral contract for payment of £350,000 was not genuinely separate from the main transaction and thus unenforceable under section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. The claim in deceit was not properly pleaded, lacking necessary particulars and factual allegations to sustain a claim. Accordingly, the appeal had no real prospect of success and summary judgment for the defendant was upheld.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 952 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mrs. Siewbassee Sukhlall; Defendant: Mr. Gooroodev Bansoodeb
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for defendant upheld.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Collateral Contract, Deceit, Section 2(1) Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Misrepresentation, Rectification, Constructive Trust
Property Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Collateral Contract Deceit Section 2(1) Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 Misrepresentation +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. Siewbassee Sukhlall

Claimant

Mr. Gooroodev Bansoodeb

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an enforceable collateral contract existed for payment of £350,000 in addition to the written sale contract for £750,000
  2. 2 Whether the claim in deceit was properly pleaded and sustainable

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the alleged collateral contract for payment of £350,000 was not genuinely separate from the main transaction and thus unenforceable under section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. The claim in deceit was not properly pleaded, lacking necessary particulars and factual allegations to sustain a claim. Accordingly, the appeal had no real prospect of success and summary judgment for the defendant was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for defendant upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Summary judgment entered for Mr. Bansoodeb