Taylor v Diamond

Taylor v Diamond

The court found that both the specific performance action and charging order proceedings were properly served at Ms Diamond's usual residence, that she failed to act promptly in seeking to set aside orders, and that she had no real prospect of overturning the orders for specific performance, charging order, or sale. The only relief granted was setting aside the order permitting sale at £650,000, directing joint agency with Barnard Marcus at £1.1 million, and continuing the injunction regarding chattels with liberty to apply.

Parties
Claimant: Matthew Taylor; Defendant: Ms Sue Diamond
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Applications for Permission to Appeal, Injunctions, and Set Aside Orders
Outcome
Applications mostly dismissed; partial relief granted.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Charging Orders, Possession Orders, Auction Sales, Service of Process, Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunctions, Appeals, Disability Accommodations, Duty of Care in Bailment
Property Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Specific Performance Charging Orders Possession Orders Auction Sales Service of Process +4 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 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Taylor

Claimant

Ms Sue Diamond

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Applications for Permission to Appeal, Injunctions, and Set Aside Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings for specific performance and charging orders were properly served
  2. 2 Whether Ms Diamond is entitled to set aside orders made in her absence
  3. 3 Whether Ms Diamond is entitled to mandatory/prohibitory injunctions regarding chattels and sale of property

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both the specific performance action and charging order proceedings were properly served at Ms Diamond's usual residence, that she failed to act promptly in seeking to set aside orders, and that she had no real prospect of overturning the orders for specific performance, charging order, or sale. The only relief granted was setting aside the order permitting sale at £650,000, directing joint agency with Barnard Marcus at £1.1 million, and continuing the injunction regarding chattels with liberty to apply.

Court Disposition

Applications mostly dismissed; partial relief granted.

Orders

  • Paragraph 1 of the order dated 23 March 2012 (sale at £650,000) set aside; paragraph 2 (costs of clearance and storage) stands.
  • Mr Taylor directed to offer Barnard Marcus joint agency to market Staveley Road at £1.1 million until 4 December 2012, commission only if sale exceeds £900,000.