Saunders & Anor v Himaly & Ors

Saunders & Anor v Himaly & Ors

The appeal succeeds because the judge erred in granting summary judgment on a basis inconsistent with the pleadings, which asserted an enforceable agreement. The case is materially distinguishable from Cobbe v. Yeoman's Row Management Ltd, and there is at least an arguable defence based on the existence of an enforceable contract or, alternatively, a mistaken belief supporting proprietary estoppel or constructive trust. The summary judgment should not have been granted, and the parties should be allowed to amend their pleadings accordingly.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Bernard Saunders; Appellant/defendant: Linda Saunders; Respondent/claimant: Shadia Hamad Al Himaly; Respondent/claimant: Ghassan Hamad Al Himaly; Respondent/claimant: Mazen Hamad Al Himaly; Respondent/claimant: Ghaddah Hamad Al Himaly
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Summary Judgment and Possession Order
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Proprietary Estoppel, Constructive Trust, Joint Venture Agreements, Relief From Sanctions
Property Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Proprietary Estoppel Constructive Trust Joint Venture Agreements Relief From Sanctions

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

Parties

Bernard Saunders

Appellant/defendant

Linda Saunders

Appellant/defendant

Shadia Hamad Al Himaly

Respondent/claimant

Ghassan Hamad Al Himaly

Respondent/claimant

Mazen Hamad Al Himaly

Respondent/claimant

Ghaddah Hamad Al Himaly

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Summary Judgment and Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was wrong to proceed with the application for summary judgment on 9 March 2016
  2. 2 Whether the facts are materially indistinguishable from Cobbe v. Yeoman's Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55
  3. 3 Whether the judge was right to grant summary judgment on the pleaded case after paragraphs were struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeds because the judge erred in granting summary judgment on a basis inconsistent with the pleadings, which asserted an enforceable agreement. The case is materially distinguishable from Cobbe v. Yeoman's Row Management Ltd, and there is at least an arguable defence based on the existence of an enforceable contract or, alternatively, a mistaken belief supporting proprietary estoppel or constructive trust. The summary judgment should not have been granted, and the parties should be allowed to amend their pleadings accordingly.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Summary judgment set aside
  • Parties to consider amendments to their pleadings