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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll