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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll