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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll