IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION Claim No.
(1) MR GEORGE WATKINS
(2) CHESTERFIELD DEVELOPMENTS PLC Claimants AND
(1) MR JOHN ARMSTRONG (2) MRS PATRICIA ANNE ARMSTRONG Defendants
1. I asked to advise the Claimants as to the merits of the claim against the Defendants for the purchase of “the property” at 7 Mill Hill Drive, Chestnut Park, Kent K2 7DH, of which the Defendants are the Freehold owners. I am also asked to advice on the application of summary judgment for specific performance in relation to it. Summary of Facts:
2. The Second Claimant (“C2”) carries the business of property developers. The company buys existing properties or groups of properties in an upmarket area, renovates and extends them by turning them in a luxury homes and then sells them on higher price. For some time C2 has been interested in Mill Hill Drive, Chesterfield Park for extending and developing them in luxury homes. 3. The First Claimant (“C1”), Mr George Watkins works as a ‘property scout’ for the C2, Chesterfield Developments PLC and individuals, he found that the property owned by John Armstrong and Patricia Anne Armstrong (the Defendants) were on the market and they wish to purchase it 4. On 18 October 2012 the C1 told, that he had made an offer to purchase it for the sum of £450,000, which had been accepted and asked to C2 that whether Chesterfield were interested in acquiring the property. Then C2 confirmed that Chesterfield would be very interested in purchasing the property and asked him to proceed with the purchase and then assign the contract after exchange had taken place and before completion. 5. By a contract dated 25 October 2012 (“the Contract”) made between the C1 and the Defendants, who agreed to sell the Property to C1 for the sum of £450,000. The Contract incorporated the Standard Conditions of Sale (5th Edition, 2011). Attached as Exhibit JR2.Contracts were exchanged on 25 October 2012, and a deposit of £45,000 was paid to the Defendants pursuant to the Contract. 6. Meanwhile, on 5th November 2012 the C1 assigned the benefit of the contract to the C2 what was accepted by the Defendants. By a letter dated 7th November 2012, the Defendants’ solicitors confirmed that they held a Transfer in favour of the C2 in readiness for completion on 22 November 2012, that being the 20th working day after the date of the contract in favour of the Claimants. 7. On 22 November 2012, the day fixed for completion, the Claimants’ solicitors sent the sum of £405,000 (that being the balance of the purchase price) by to the Defendants’ solicitors to complete the purchase. By a letter dated 23rd November 2012 the Defendants’ solicitors confirmed to the Claimants’ solicitors that the Defendants no longer intended to complete the purchase, indicating that they have never consented to sell the property to Chesterfield and that the identity of the Buyer had been misrepresented to them. They returned the sum of £405,000 but retained the deposit of £45,000.
Summary of Advice
8. In my opinion, the Claimants have a very good case against the Defendants’ case.The arguments put forwarded by the defendants in defending their claim is not very strong enough that the identity of the Purchaser had been misrepresented. Any statement about acquiring the property for rental investment is a statement about future intention, not existing fact and thus cannot give rise to a claim in misrepresentation in any event. 9. So this is my opinion, there is a real prospect of success in this claim and there is no other good compelling reasons for why the judgment will not be...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document