Sharma and another v Simposh Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Toulson,Lady Justice Black,Lord Justice Laws |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWCA Civ 1383 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B2/2010/2830 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 23 November 2011 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
22 cases
-
Astra Asset Management UK v The Co-operative Bank Plc
...reason for the payment has failed to materialise or, if it did exist, has failed to sustain itself”, for which definition it refers to Sharma v Simposh Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1383. It is helpful to cite paragraphs [21]–[25] of that case, where Toulson LJ said: “21. The agreement between the p......
-
Laditi and another v Marlbray Ltd
...such contract was invalid for non-compliance with section 2, then the situation in the present case is analogous with that in Sharma and another v. Simposh Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1383; [2013] Ch. 23, another obviously relevant case which was not cited to us by either counsel at the oral heari......
- Ahmad Zulfendi bin Anuar v Mohd Shahril bin Abdul Rahman
-
Patel v Mirza
...failed to materialise. (See Professor Andrew Burrows' A Restatement of the English Law of Unjust Enrichment, 2012, p 86, para 15). In Sharma v Simposh Ltd [2013] Ch 23, at para 24, the Court of Appeal cited with approval Professor Birks' summary of the meaning of failure of consideration i......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
-
Deposit Not Repayable Even Though Contract Was Void
...and Kuruppu v Simposh Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 1383 S&K paid a deposit to Simposh under an oral agreement giving S&K an option to purchase a block of flats under construction at an agreed valuation. Simposh was to complete the construction within an agreed time and not to market the ......
-
BLG Monthly Update - January 2012
...deposit but the underlying contract is void, can you get the deposit back? Not always. And not on the facts of Sharma v Simposh Ltd, [2011] EWCA Civ 1383, where the parties agreed orally that Sharma would pay a £55,000 non-refundable deposit in exchange for a promise that Simposh would comp......
1 books & journal articles
-
When the truth lies elsewhere: A comment on the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements in light of S v Mathonsi 2012 (1) SACR 335 (KZP) and S v Rathumbu 2012 (2) SACR 219 (SCA)
...such evidence’ (in court), but rather the police officer or other person to whom the witness made the statement (Du Toit op cit RS 50, 2013, ch23-p22E). This is a question that undoubtedly requires clarification, however it is unnecessar y to consider it further for purposes of this comme......
3 provisions
-
California Register, 2014, Number 24. June 13, 2014
...File#2014–0507–02 MANAGED RISK MEDICAL INSURANCE BOARD ContinueMRMIP2013SubscriberSubsidy Section 25 of Assembly Bill (AB) 82 (Stats. 2013, ch. 23) amended subdivision (c) of Insurance Code section 12737 to give the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (Board) ongoing authority beyond 2013 ......
-
California Register, 2013, Number 48. November 29, 2013
...File#2013–1104–05 MANAGED RISK MEDICAL INSURANCE BOARD ContinueMRMIP2013SubscriberSubsidy Section 25 of Assembly Bill (AB) 82 (Stats. 2013, ch. 23) amended subdivision (c) of Insurance Code section 12737 to give the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (Board) ongoing authority beyond 2013 ......
-
California Register, 2013, Number 47. November 22, 2013
...1850 File#2013–1104–05 MANAGED RISK MEDICAL INSURANCE BOARD ContinueMRMIP2013SubscriberSubsidy Section 25 of Assembly Bill (AB) 82 (Stats. 2013, ch. 23) amended subdivision (c) of Insurance Code section 12737 to give the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (Board) ongoing authority beyond ......