Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal held that share transfer and payment obligations in a put option agreement were concurrent conditions, dismissing the first appeal ground.
Textor v Iconic Sports Eagle Investment LLC [2026] EWCA Civ 355 (25 March 2026)
The Court of Appeal held that delivery and payment under a put option agreement were concurrent conditions, not sequential, and dismissed Mr Textor’s appeal on that issue.
The High Court found an oral contract for the sale of Caddicks Ltd’s shares and ordered specific performance, rejecting the defendant’s traveller-custom defence.
HMRC’s appeal failed. The Upper Tribunal held that VAT on professional fees for a share sale was deductible because the sale funded taxable hotel development.
The Court of Appeal held that payment and share transfer obligations were dependent, so non-payment did not create a debt enforceable by statutory demand.
Blight v Meredith & Ors [2012] EWHC 165 (Ch) (09 February 2012)
The High Court held that a transfer of charged shares to the claimants at market value was a sale under the order, and it allowed enforcement against the defendant’s pension election right.
The High Court held that a transfer of Bowleven shares to the claimants in return for credit against the debt was a sale under the order, and it allowed enforcement against a pension drawdown right.
The court held that tax indemnity payments made in a staged company sale were genuine indemnities, not extra sale consideration, and dismissed the claim.
Miller v Bayliss [2009] EWHC 2063 (Ch) (05 August 2009)
The High Court held there was no binding contract for the shares and no basis for Section 303 relief. The trustee could sell to Mrs Peckham, and Mrs Bayliss must return 187 shares.
Dashfield & Anor v Davidson & Ors [2008] EWHC 486 (Ch) (18 March 2008)
The High Court held that a deceased shareholder’s estate had to sell shares under article 14, and that the price should be based on the 2003 audited accounts.
Explore more
