Secret Commissions: Wood v Commercial First Business – Case Analysis – Forum Chambers

Posted November 20th, 2019 in agency, disclosure, fees, forgery, limitations, loans, mortgages, news, rescission by sally

‘This note is essential reading for mortgage providers, brokers and any practitioners with a practice or interest in civil fraud as the case constitutes perhaps the most detailed review of the law on secret commissions to date. In particular, it addresses the distinction between full secret commissions and so-called half-secret commissions where there is a partial disclosure. It clarifies the law in the area and solidifies the basis for a broker being held liable where a commission is only partially disclosed.’

Full Story

Forum Chambers, 12th November 2019


Can You Keep A Half Secret? (Wood v Commercial First) – New Square Chambers

Posted November 19th, 2019 in agency, disclosure, fees, forgery, limitations, loans, mortgages, news, rescission by sally

‘The dispute centred around a mortgage broker receiving both a fee from the borrower and a commission from the lender. Mrs Wood obtained two mortgages and a further advance secured over her two farms from Commercial First Business Limited (“CF”), a provider of unregulated secured loans to commercial borrowers. CF only accepted applications via brokers. UK Mortgage and Financial Services Limited (“UKMFS”) acted as broker for Mrs Wood on all three transactions, receiving commissions of £30,600, £57,092.80 and £5,234.22 respectively. CF entered into securitisation agreements assigning the loans to various assignees prior to entering CVL.’

Full Story

New Square Chambers, 5th November 2019


Withdrawn But Not Forgotten? – Effect Of A Withdrawn Part 36 Offer – Ballard v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 370 (QB) – Zenith PI

Posted March 5th, 2018 in appeals, costs, health, news, part 36 offers, personal injuries, rescission by tracey

‘In Ballard v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 370 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett had to consider the issue of what costs consequences, if any, should follow from the claimant’s failure to beat a Part 36 offer which had been withdrawn, the defendant having gone on to make a second, lower, offer.’

Full Story

Zenith PI, 1st March 2018


Couple suing previous owners of house claim Facebook post proves they hid a flooding problem – Daily Telegraph

Posted September 4th, 2017 in damages, documents, home information packs, housing, internet, news, rescission, sale of land by sally

‘A couple whose garden has repeatedly flooded are suing the previous owners, claiming a Facebook photograph proves they were aware of the problem but failed to highlight it.’

Full Story

Daily Telegraph, 3rd September 2017


Dealing with a breach of contract. What are the options for the innocent party when the contract is broken? Can they walk away from the deal, when and how? – Falcon Chambers

Posted November 10th, 2016 in contracts, news, rescission, speeches by sally

‘I have been asked to talk this afternoon about breach of contract, specifically what strategies can be adopted in the event that one party fails to complete under the terms of the contract. What are the options for escaping the contract or, alternatively, for forcing the other party to complete?

Full story

Falcon Chambers, September 2016


Buyer beware – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted July 26th, 2016 in damages, deposits, misrepresentation, news, penalties, rescission, sale of land by sally

‘William Griffiths QC is a successful silk but was the unsuccessful defendant in the widely reported case of Hardy v Griffiths [2014]. Mr and Mrs Griffiths had exchanged contracts with the claimant, Mr Hardy, to buy Laughton Manor for £3.6m and paid £150,000 on account of the 10% deposit, the contract incorporating the Standard Conditions of Sale (SCS).’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 25th July 2016


Deposit Dilemmas – Tanfield Chambers

Posted July 12th, 2016 in contracts, deposits, news, repayment, rescission, sale of land by sally

‘Contracts for the sale of land can fail to complete for many reasons. The Standard Conditions and Standard Commercial Conditions require a 10% deposit to be paid on exchange of contracts. This can amount to a substantial sum of money. Purchasers will know that where they fail to complete it is commonplace for the vendor to retain that deposit. In the current market, with property prices soaring ever higher, the out-of-pocket purchaser may be justified in feeling that the vendor has obtained a windfall in keeping the deposit and selling the property on to a third party at a higher price.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 6th July 2016


Van der Merwe v Goldman and another – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in contracts, law reports, mistake, rescission, setting aside by sally

Van der Merwe v Goldman and another [2016] EWHC 790 (Ch)

‘The claimant and the first defendant were husband and wife and the joint freehold owners of a house, where they lived. On 24 March the claimant and the first defendant executed a transfer of the title to the house to the claimant alone, for no stated consideration. On 27 March the claimant executed a deed of settlement whereby he settled the house on the terms of that deed and appointed himself and the first defendant as trustees of the settlement. The claimant also executed a transfer of the title to the house to himself and the first defendant as the trustees of the settlement. The principal beneficiaries of the settlement were the claimant, the first defendant, their children and remoter issue. Although the transactions were entered into in order to obtain certain tax advantages, in fact, as a consequence of a change in the law, they gave rise to a substantial tax liability. The claimant and first defendant brought a claim for an order setting aside the transfer of 24 March and the settlement and transfer of 27 March. In issue in the proceedings, to which the revenue was joined as a second defendant, was whether the transactions were governed by common law rules for declaring a contract to be void by reason of mistake or the equitable rules for setting aside a gift for mistake.’

WLR Daily, 11th April 2016


Supreme Court hands down judgment in Durkin v DSG Retail Limited and another – Henderson Chambers

‘On 26 March 2014 the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Durkin v DSG Retail Limited and another. The judgment in this long-running case addresses the issue of a consumer’s right, in the context of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement, to rescind the credit agreement on lawful rescission of the sale agreement.’

Full story

Henderson Chambers, 28th March 2014


Durkin v DSG Retail Ltd and another – WLR Daily

Durkin v DSG Retail Ltd and another [2014] UKSC 21; [2014] WLR (D) 144

A restricted-use credit agreement under section 12(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which related to a specified supply transaction was conditional upon the substantive survival of that supply transaction, so that a purchaser who rescinded the supply agreement for breach of contract could also rescind the credit agreement.

WLR Daily, 26th March 2014


Richard Durkin: ‘Mixed feelings’ for the man who fought a £250,000 16-year PC World laptop credit dispute with HFC bank – The Independent

Posted March 27th, 2014 in appeals, banking, consumer credit, damages, duty of care, news, rescission, Supreme Court by tracey

‘A man placed on a credit blacklist after a row over payments for a laptop computer said today he had “mixed feelings” despite winning a court battle that lasted 16 years.’

Full story

The Independent, 26th March 2014


Repudiatory breach cases should rest on principle, not precedent, says Court of Appeal –

Posted November 1st, 2010 in contracts, news, rescission by sally

“Companies claiming that a business partner walked away from a contract should pay less attention to previous cases and more attention to the basic principals behind the law of repudiation, the Court of Appeal has said.”

Full story, 1st November 2010


Trident Turboprop (Dublin) Ltd v First Flight Couriers Ltd – Times Law Reports

Trident Turboprop (Dublin) Ltd v First Flight Couriers Ltd

Court of Appeal

“International supply contracts which excluded liability for misrepresentation and the right to rescind were not subject to the requirement of reasonableness.”

The Times, 15th April 2009


Alchemy Estates Ltd v Astor and another – WLR Daily

Posted November 6th, 2008 in assignment, law reports, rescission, sale of goods by sally

Alchemy Estates Ltd v Astor and another [2008] EWHC 2675 (Ch); [2008] WLR (D) 343

“The contractual right of rescission under condition 8.3.3 of the Standard Conditions of Sale had to be exercised promptly, which meant by the contractual completion date, or possibly, within a day or two thereafter.”

WLR Daily, 6th November 2008


Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.