Taylor v Diamond

Taylor v Diamond

There is no ground to vary the previous order as the conduct of sale is vested in the chargee in possession, and the marketing period is sufficient given the number of potential purchasers and recent comparable sales.

Parties
Claimant: Matthew Taylor; Defendant: Sue Diamond
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Post Judgment Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Sale of Property, Agency, Variation of Court Order
Property Law Sale of Property Agency Variation of Court Order

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Taylor

Claimant

Sue Diamond

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Post Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to vary the previous court order regarding the appointment of estate agents and marketing of property
  2. 2 Whether to extend the marketing period for the sale

Ratio Decidendi

There is no ground to vary the previous order as the conduct of sale is vested in the chargee in possession, and the marketing period is sufficient given the number of potential purchasers and recent comparable sales.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No variation of the previous order
  • No extension of the marketing period