header-logo header-logo

30 April 2009 / Rowena Meager
Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Show me the money

House-buyers may struggle to pocket non-returnable deposits, says Rowena Meager

* * * * * *

Section 49(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) confers upon the court the discretion to order the repayment of a deposit paid by a party who enters into a contract to purchase land but then fails to complete the transaction in accordance with his contractual obligations. In the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Midill (97PL) Limited v (1) Park Lane Estates Limited and (2) Gomba International Investments Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 1227 the proper interpretation of s 49(2) was considered. As was noted by Lord Justice Carnwath, giving the judgment of the court, s 49(2) jurisprudence has followed an uncertain course. This decision will hopefully lend some welcome clarity to the approach which ought to be adopted by the courts in future.

Facts of the case

Park Lanes Estates Ltd (Park Lane) was wholly owned by Gomba International Investments Ltd (Gomba). Park Lane's only asset was a property at 97 Park Lane,

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll