header-logo header-logo

Fresh Appeal

16 September 2010 / Jonathan Pratt
Issue: 7433 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Divorce , Property
printer mail-detail

In Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, [1954] 3 All ER 745 the dispute revolved around the potential sale of a bungalow, which Mr Ladd wished to buy from Mr Marshall.

According to Mr Ladd, Mr Marshall had told him that the property was price controlled and that he would only sell the property if Mr Ladd gave him £1,000 in cash in addition to the sale price (£2,500) permitted by the relevant legislation. Mr Ladd claimed that he handed over the cash at Mr Marshall’s house in the presence of two witnesses, one a friend of Mr Ladd and the other Mr Marshall’s wife. Shortly thereafter Mr Marshall pulled out of the sale, and Mr Ladd issued proceedings for the return of the £1,000, which Mr Marshall denied receiving.

At trial Mr Ladd called Mrs Marshall as a witness but she claimed that she could not remember any money being handed over. The judge dismissed Mr Ladd’s claim. Two years later Mrs Marshall divorced her husband. She then made a statement to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll