Thandi v Saggu [2021] EWHC 2842 (Ch) (02 September 2021)

Thandi v Saggu [2021] EWHC 2842 (Ch) (02 September 2021)

The risk of injustice to Mrs Thandi if the injunction is refused (potential repossession of her home) outweighs the risk to Mr Saggu if it is granted, especially given the undertakings offered by Mrs Thandi to protect Saggu’s interests in the event of specific performance. There is a serious issue to be tried regarding the validity of the contract, and damages are not an adequate remedy for either party. The balance of convenience favours granting the interim mandatory injunction to remove the unilateral notice.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2842 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mrs Thandi; Defendant: Mr Saggu
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory (pre Trial)
Outcome
Interim mandatory injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Unilateral Notice, Specific Performance, Undue Influence, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience
Property Law Contract Law Equity Interim Injunctions Unilateral Notice Specific Performance Undue Influence Adequacy of Damages +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Thandi

Claimant

Mr Saggu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim mandatory injunction should be granted to remove a unilateral notice from the Land Registry
  2. 2 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried regarding the validity of the contract for sale
  3. 3 Adequacy of damages for both parties

Ratio Decidendi

The risk of injustice to Mrs Thandi if the injunction is refused (potential repossession of her home) outweighs the risk to Mr Saggu if it is granted, especially given the undertakings offered by Mrs Thandi to protect Saggu’s interests in the event of specific performance. There is a serious issue to be tried regarding the validity of the contract, and damages are not an adequate remedy for either party. The balance of convenience favours granting the interim mandatory injunction to remove the unilateral notice.

Court Disposition

Interim mandatory injunction granted

Orders

  • Removal of the unilateral notice from the Land Registry pending trial
  • Claimant to provide undertakings not to dispose of or further encumber Heather Drive or Parkside Parade pending resolution