Transview Properties Ltd v City Site Properties Ltd

Transview Properties Ltd v City Site Properties Ltd

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to find that there was no unilateral mistake or sharp practice by CSP, that the omission of the overage abatement provision from the Sale Agreement was agreed by both parties, and that the abatement was to be dealt with in a side letter. The judge's findings...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Transview Properties Limited; Respondent: City Site Properties Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Contract, Unilateral Mistake, Overage Provisions, Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Contract Law Equity Rectification of Contract Unilateral Mistake Overage Provisions Fresh Evidence on Appeal

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Transview Properties Limited

Appellant

City Site Properties Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sale Agreement should be rectified for unilateral mistake to include an overage abatement provision
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in findings of fact regarding the parties' intentions and negotiations
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal to challenge the authenticity of a key document (the Goodman Letter)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to find that there was no unilateral mistake or sharp practice by CSP, that the omission of the overage abatement provision from the Sale Agreement was agreed by both parties, and that the abatement was to be dealt with in a side letter. The judge's findings of fact were not plainly wrong and were supported by the evidence. The applications to adduce fresh evidence were refused as the evidence was available or could have been obtained before trial and would not have had a decisive influence on the outcome. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applications to adduce fresh evidence refused
  • Substantive appeal dismissed