Gladman Developments Ltd v Sutton & Ors

Gladman Developments Ltd v Sutton & Ors

No binding oral agreement was made between the parties. The evidence, including contemporaneous documents and subsequent conduct, demonstrated that negotiations were 'in principle' and subject to contract, with essential terms to be incorporated into a formal written agreement. The standard of proof required for a finding of a concluded oral contract was not met.

Parties
Claimant: Gladman Developments Limited; Defendant: Patricia Sutton; Defendant: John Roger Sutton; Defendant: Andrew John Sutton; Defendant: Roger Gregory Sutton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Oral Agreements, Promotion Agreements, Subject to Contract, Land Development
Contract Law Property Law Formation of Contract Oral Agreements Promotion Agreements Subject to Contract Land Development

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gladman Developments Limited

Claimant

Patricia Sutton

Defendant

John Roger Sutton

Defendant

Andrew John Sutton

Defendant

Roger Gregory Sutton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a legally binding oral agreement was made between the parties for the promotion of land for development
  2. 2 Whether subsequent conduct and communications evidenced a concluded contract

Ratio Decidendi

No binding oral agreement was made between the parties. The evidence, including contemporaneous documents and subsequent conduct, demonstrated that negotiations were 'in principle' and subject to contract, with essential terms to be incorporated into a formal written agreement. The standard of proof required for a finding of a concluded oral contract was not met.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed