Ford-Hunt v Raghbir Singh
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1973 |
| Date | 1973 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Practice - Order - Supplemental order - Perfected order for specific performance - Defendant's failure to comply - Alleged damage from delay in obtaining possession - Application for supplemental order for inquiry as to damages - Whether jurisdiction to make order
On July 21, 1972, the plaintiffs obtained an order for specific performance of a contract for sale to them by the defendant of a dwelling — house and land for £5,750. They did not then seek an order for an inquiry as to damages. The defendant failed to execute a transfer as required by the order, and further proceedings were necessitated, including the issue of a writ of possession, before the plaintiffs were able to obtain vacant possession in mid-January 1973.
On the plaintiffs' motion dated December 29, 1972, for a supplemental order for an inquiry as to damages caused by the defendant's delay: —
Held, that an inquiry as to damages sustained by reason of the delay and limited to those arising after July 21, 1972, should be ordered, since any damage would constitute a new fact sufficient to ground a supplemental order.
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Glasier v. Rolls (
Hall v. Burnell [
Jaques v. Millar (
Jones v. Cardiner [
Munro v. Finlinson (
Scowby, In re [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Marshall v. Berridge (
Phillips v. Lamdin [
MOTION
Only July 21, 1972, the plaintiffs, Mr. Holman Lancelot Ford-Hunt and his wife, Mrs. Edith Mabel Ford-Hunt, obtained an order for specific performance of a contract for the sale to them by the defendant, Mr. Raghbir Singh, of a property known as 7 Upper Holly Hill Road, Bexley, at a price of £5,750. They did not then seek an order for an inquiry as to damages and the order for specific performance was duly perfected. The defendant failed to execute a transfer as required by the order and on December 7, 1972, a further order was made nominating a master of the Supreme Court to execute the transfer, and directing the defendant to deliver up vacant possession. The defendant failed to comply, and the plaintiffs did not finally obtain possession until mid January 1973, after a writ of possession had been issued. The delay in obtaining possession, it was alleged, necessitated the plaintiffs' obtaining a bridging loan at considerable cost to them, because the building society from whom they intended to obtain money to finance the purchase, had refused to advance the money required to complete the purchase until vacant possession was given. Accordingly, the plaintiffs issued a notice of motion on December 29, 1972, asking for a supplemental order for an inquiry whether the plaintiffs had sustained any and if so what damage by reason of the defendant's delay in completing the sale agreement.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
A. Steinfeld for the plaintiffs.
The defendant appeared in person.
March 7. BRIGHTMAN J. read the following judgment. The issue on this application is whether an inquiry as to damages ought to be added, by supplemental order, to an order for specific performance made in July 1972. Despite the frequency of specific performance decrees, legal reporting does not instance a similar application for almost 70 years.
On February 7, 1972, an agreement in writing was made for the sale by the defendant, Raghbir Singh to the plaintiffs, Mr. Holman Lancelot Ford-Hunt and his wife, Edith Mabel Ford-Hunt, of a property known as 7 Upper Holly Hill Road, Bexley, at the price of £5,750. The date fixed for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Amarjit Singh Sidhu v Tan Siew Eng and Another
- Bunga Nominees Sdn Bhd v Abdul Jabbar Majid & 3 Ors
- Easton v Brown
- Dato' Abdul Rahman Dato' Mohammed Hashim v Mass Media Interactive Sdn Bhd
-
Courts 2
...delay in completing the agreement, any rate from the date of the original order for specific performance – see: Ford-Hunt v. Singh (1973) 2 All E.R. 700; (1973) 1 W.L.R. 738. (4) If a judgment or order has been obtained by fraud, a fresh action will lie to impeach the judgment. In Halsbury’......