Barton v Jones & Ors

Barton v Jones & Ors

The parties concluded a contract under which Foxpace would pay Barton £1.2 million only if Nash House was sold for £6.5 million. As the property sold for £6 million, Foxpace is not contractually liable. The existence of a contract allocating risk precludes a claim in unjust enrichment.

Parties
Appellant: Philip Barton; First Respondent: Timothy Gwyn Jones; Second Respondent: Julie Ann Swan; Third Respondent: Mark Richard Phillips; Fourth Respondent: Foxpace Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Introduction Fee, Proof of Debt, Liquidation, Free Acceptance, Quantum Meruit
Contract Law Insolvency Unjust Enrichment Introduction Fee Proof of Debt Liquidation Free Acceptance Quantum Meruit

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Barton

Appellant

Timothy Gwyn Jones

First Respondent

Julie Ann Swan

Second Respondent

Mark Richard Phillips

Third Respondent

Foxpace Limited

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Foxpace Limited is contractually liable to pay Philip Barton £1.2 million for introducing a purchaser for Nash House
  2. 2 Whether Foxpace Limited is liable to Philip Barton in restitution for unjust enrichment
  3. 3 Whether the proof of debt for voting purposes in liquidation should be allowed in full

Ratio Decidendi

The parties concluded a contract under which Foxpace would pay Barton £1.2 million only if Nash House was sold for £6.5 million. As the property sold for £6 million, Foxpace is not contractually liable. The existence of a contract allocating risk precludes a claim in unjust enrichment.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed