header-logo header-logo

17 April 2008
Issue: 7317 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Conveyancing

Aribisala v St James’ Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd [2008] EWHC 456 (Ch), [2008] All ER (D) 201 (Mar)

The only real scope for the operation of s 49(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (ordering the return of a deposit) is when the purchaser is the party unable to perform the contract: where it is the vendor who is unable to perform the contract, the purchaser will have a legal right to the return of the deposit.

What needs to be looked at is how close the purchaser came to performing the  contract, what alternatives he was able to  propose to the vendor and how advantageous they would be compared with actual performance of the contractual terms. Where the purchaser simply could not perform the contract or offer any such alternative, then it would be exceptional for the deposit to be returned.

Issue: 7317 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll