Cornish and Cornish v Brelade Bay Limited [2018] JRC 153 (28 August 2018)

Cornish and Cornish v Brelade Bay Limited [2018] JRC 153 (28 August 2018)

The caveat was set aside due to material non-disclosure by the Applicants regarding the latent defects insurance policy, prior compensation for delay, and outstanding sums owed to the Respondent. The urgency and necessity for the caveat were not established, and alternative security measures were not explored. The balance of convenience did not justify re-imposing the caveat, especially given the disproportion between the claim and the value of the property affected.

Citation
[2018] JRC 153
Parties
Applicant: Applicants/Plaintiffs; Respondent: Respondent/Defendant (Brelade Bay)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
28 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Caveat / Interlocutory
Outcome
Caveat set aside and not re-imposed
Legal Topics
Caveats, Freezing Orders, Disclosure Obligations, Remedial Works, Building Contracts
Civil Procedure Property Law Contract Law Caveats Freezing Orders Disclosure Obligations Remedial Works Building Contracts

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

Parties

Applicants/Plaintiffs

Applicant

Respondent/Defendant (Brelade Bay)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Caveat / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the caveat lodged by the Applicants should be set aside for material non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the caveat should be re-imposed or alternative security measures should be considered

Ratio Decidendi

The caveat was set aside due to material non-disclosure by the Applicants regarding the latent defects insurance policy, prior compensation for delay, and outstanding sums owed to the Respondent. The urgency and necessity for the caveat were not established, and alternative security measures were not explored. The balance of convenience did not justify re-imposing the caveat, especially given the disproportion between the claim and the value of the property affected.

Court Disposition

Caveat set aside and not re-imposed

Orders

  • The caveat lodged by the Applicants is set aside.
  • No re-imposition of the caveat.