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

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield welcomes new employment partner, Tom McLaughlin

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

National specialist pensions law firm strengthens team with three new appointments

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit appoints Christian Abletshauser to lead family law practice

NEWS
Burges Salmon appoints Benn Richards to strengthen Contentious Insolvency offering
Jonathan Fisher KC’s wide-ranging fraud report contains worthwhile proposals, but turning them into workable reform will require money, capacity and political will
A Court of Appeal ruling shows that a failed nuisance claim may still leave a neighbour liable in negligence where foreseeable harm could readily have been avoided
The government has stepped back from a proposed early-release exclusion limited to unlawful act manslaughter, opting instead to exclude all manslaughter sentences
A High Court decision has clarified that a home may be unfit for human habitation not only where conditions endanger health or safety, but also where they seriously undermine comfort and convenience
back-to-top-scroll