In the recent case of Aribisala v St James’ Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Limited the question of whether a deposit should be returned by the vendor upon the failure of a purchaser to complete a purchase of property was re-visited. The issue concerned the proper interpretation of section 49(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 which confers upon the court a discretion to determine whether or not a deposit should be returned in such circumstances. In an earlier Court of Appeal case, Omar v El Wakil, the approach that a deposit should not normally be returned unless the circumstances were exceptional was adopted. It was followed in this case.
Categories
- Administration of Estates
- Adverse Possession
- Assent
- Beneficial Ownership
- Co-ownership
- Common Intention
- Commons Act 2006
- Commons Registration Act 1965
- Constructive Trusts
- Covenants
- Deference
- Definitive Map and Statement
- Deposits
- Easements
- Excessive User
- Execution Of Documents
- Executors
- Family Home
- Family Provision
- Foreign Executors
- Highways Act 1980
- Intestacy
- Joint Tenancy
- Jurisdiction
- Land Law
- Law Commission
- Lease
- Modification Orders
- Mortgages
- Neighbourhood
- New Green Registration
- Non-Domestic Rates
- Overreaching
- Overriding Interests
- Prescription
- Profits a Prendre
- Property Law
- Proprietary Estoppel
- Public Rights of Way
- Purpose Trusts
- Quistclose Trusts
- Rates Avoidance
- Right of Way
- Section 62 LPA 1925
- Sham transactions
- Standing
- Testamentary Disposition
- Town & Village Greens
- Trespass
- Trusts
- Trusts of Land
- Uncategorized
- Updates
- User As of Right
- Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981
Leave a Reply