PropertyWednesday 10 January 2024
The Claimant had served valid notices to exercise valuable options in three leases but had omitted to pay the 10% deposits which were due by midnight on the date the Claimant exercised the options. HHJ Hodge KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) accepted the Claimant’s argument that time was not of the essence for payment of the three deposits. Whilst it is conventional for time to be of the essence for payment of a deposit under a sale and purchase agreement (see Samarenko v Dawn Hill House Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1445), the circumstances of this case were sufficient to take it out of the ordinary run of cases. There were two principal reasons: (1) this is not the case of a payment of a deposit on an ordinary contract for the sale and purchase of land, but rather the exercise of a tenant’s option to purchase the landlord’s reversionary interest; and (2) on the true interpretation of the option provisions, time should not be treated as being of the essence for the payment of the deposits.
Alice Hawker was instructed by Freeths and appeared for the successful Claimant.
People to view:
News
Wilberforce Chambers is delighted to announce that Joanne Wicks KC was awarded Real Estate Barrister of the Year at the 2025 Lexology European Awards. A huge thank you to all our clients for your ongoing support of Wilberforce Chambers. Congratulations... Read more
Tuesday 18 March 2025
View more
News
Wilberforce Chambers is delighted to announce that Mark Galtrey has joined Chambers from 4th March 2025. Mark is a specialist property barrister with an outstanding reputation in real estate litigation, agriculture, and partnership disputes. Brian Green KC (Head of Chambers) said, “We are... Read more
Tuesday 4 March 2025
View more
Recent Cases
Property
John McGhee KC | Jonathan Seitler KC | James McCreath | Francesca Mitchell
Monday 10 February 2025
External Conferences
Thursday 13 February 2025
Hogan Lovells, Atlantic House, Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2FG
Speakers:
Emer Murphy
