header-logo header-logo

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

Fresh Appeal

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll