Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Gregory Hill (instructed by Hutchinson Mainprice) for the Appellants Timothy Carlisle (instructed by Colemans Solicitors LLP) for the Respondent Hearing dates: 3 February 2011 ____________________
The title number referred in clause 25.1(a) accidentally omitted a figure "7". There is no dispute that it is intended to refer to the title number mentioned in clause 5, namely SGL 372337.
The defendants had paid a 10% deposit, equal to �58,000, of which �6,000 was held by the claimant's solicitors as his agent and the remaining �52,000 held as stakeholder. This explains the reference to the �6,000 in clause 25.3.
That seems to me, with respect, to be an entirely accurate summary of the relevant approach.
Mr Carlisle submitted that the position is the same in the instant case if it is otherwise open to the buyer to waive the documents service term.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.