Taylor v Diamond [2012] EWHC 2900 (Ch) (22 October 2012)

Taylor v Diamond [2012] EWHC 2900 (Ch) (22 October 2012)

The court held that service of proceedings was properly effected at Ms Diamond's usual or last known residence, that her applications to set aside the orders were not made promptly, and that she had no real prospect of defending the claim or obtaining specific performance at a reduced price. The orders for specific performance, charging order, and sale were properly made and should not be set aside. However, the application to set aside the order reducing the minimum sale price to £650,000 was allowed to proceed, as there was a real prospect of persuading a judge that the minimum price should not be as low as £650,000.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2900 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Matthew Taylor; Defendant: Ms Sue Diamond
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Appeal and Interlocutory Applications / Judgment on Appeal and Multiple Applications After Orders for Specific Performance, Charging Order, and Sale
Outcome
Appeal and applications to set aside orders for specific performance, charging order, and sale dismissed; application to set aside order reducing minimum sale price to £650,000 allowed to proceed.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Service of Process, Charging Orders, Possession and Sale of Property, Appeals, Disability Discrimination, Misrepresentation, Injunctions
Property Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Service of Process Charging Orders Possession and Sale of Property Appeals Disability Discrimination +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Taylor

Claimant

Ms Sue Diamond

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Appeal and Interlocutory Applications / Judgment on Appeal and Multiple Applications After Orders for Specific Performance, Charging Order, and Sale

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings for specific performance and charging order were properly served on the defendant
  2. 2 Whether orders for specific performance, charging order, and sale should be set aside for non-attendance or lack of notice
  3. 3 Whether the minimum sale price for the property should be revised

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that service of proceedings was properly effected at Ms Diamond's usual or last known residence, that her applications to set aside the orders were not made promptly, and that she had no real prospect of defending the claim or obtaining specific performance at a reduced price. The orders for specific performance, charging order, and sale were properly made and should not be set aside. However, the application to set aside the order reducing the minimum sale price to £650,000 was allowed to proceed, as there was a real prospect of persuading a judge that the minimum price should not be as low as £650,000.

Court Disposition

Appeal and applications to set aside orders for specific performance, charging order, and sale dismissed; application to set aside order reducing minimum sale price to £650,000 allowed to proceed.

Orders

  • Dismissal of applications to set aside orders for specific performance, charging order, and sale.
  • Permission for application to set aside order reducing minimum sale price to £650,000 to proceed.