Home Farm Development Limited -v- HJL Holdings Ltd and Lingard [2013] JRC 160 (07 August 2013)

Home Farm Development Limited -v- HJL Holdings Ltd and Lingard [2013] JRC 160 (07 August 2013)

Leave to appeal was refused because the respondents, having obtained advantages from the agreement made in court, should not be permitted to resile from its disadvantageous parts. No clear case of something having gone wrong was established; the consent order reflected a real contract between the parties, and any alleged mistake by counsel did not warrant interference.

Citation
[2013] JRC 160
Parties
Applicant: Representor (Mr Holmes); Respondent: First Respondent; Respondent: Second Respondent
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
07 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Post Judgment, Leave to Appeal Sought
Outcome
application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Consent Orders, Interest Rates, Joint Venture Agreements, Leave to Appeal, Mistake by Counsel
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Consent Orders Interest Rates Joint Venture Agreements Leave to Appeal Mistake by Counsel

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

Representor (Mr Holmes)

Applicant

First Respondent

Respondent

Second Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Post Judgment, Leave to Appeal Sought

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against a consent order allegedly agreed in error by counsel
  2. 2 Whether the interest rate agreed in court was binding despite alleged lack of authority from the respondent
  3. 3 Whether the Court should interfere with a consent order based on alleged mistake by counsel

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the respondents, having obtained advantages from the agreement made in court, should not be permitted to resile from its disadvantageous parts. No clear case of something having gone wrong was established; the consent order reflected a real contract between the parties, and any alleged mistake by counsel did not warrant interference.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • No order for costs in respect of this representation.