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.
By his application for summary judgment, the Plaintiff seeks a construction of the Agreement with an order for specific performance of what is alleged by the Plaintiff to be a Defendant's obligation thereunder, namely, to vacate the Property.
The Agreement was expressed to settle all the various claims between the parties. It can conveniently be summarised as having three main purposes:
(iii) to cover miscellaneous points which are not relevant to the present litigation, which concerns only those provisions relevant to the Property.
Advocate Sharp contended for the Plaintiff that the Agreement was intended to provide a clean break between the parties as a result of the breakdown of their partnership. For the Defendant, Advocate Swart contended that there could not be a clean break until the Property was sold, and therefore the Agreement should not be seen in that light. In our view, it is clear that the Agreement was intended to provide a clean break between the parties albeit the clean break would not be ultimately achieved until the Property was sold.
Although PGDHL is not a party to the Agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that they would, as directors, procure that the Property was marketed for sale on the open market. Their Agreement that the Property should be sold encompassed a number of points of which the material ones are set out in these provisions:
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.