Shelley v Paddock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE BRANDON |
| Judgment Date | 08 October 1979 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1979] EWCA Civ J1008-2 |
| Docket Number | 1974 S. No. 7268 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 08 October 1979 |
[1979] EWCA Civ J1008-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from The High Court of Justice
Queen's Bench Division
(Mr. Justice Bristow)
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Brandon and
Lord Justice Brighton
THE PLAINTIFF (RESPONDENT) appeared in person.
MR. E. SOMERSET JONES, Q.C. and MR. D. SEROTA (instructed by Messrs. Philip Conway Thomas & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Defendants (Appellants).
Miss Dorothy Shelley was living in Lowestoft in England. She was interested in buying a house in Spain. She saw an advertisement in the Exchange and Mart on the 28th March, 1974. An agency, Agencia Nero, were advertising the sale of a house No. 7 Calle la Salud, Altea, near Alicante, for £12,000 freehold. Miss Shelley answered that advertisement. In her letter she said: "Would you be prepared to accept payment in cash sterling in Spain?" She received a reply from a Mr. Paddock, in which he said that the suggestion of payment in that way "would be most acceptable to us".
Upon receiving that acknowledgement, Miss Shelley took advantage of an agent's ( Vernon Smith) inspection flight cheap ticket, and went to Spain. When she arrived, she went to the local agent of Vernon Smith. She discovered that he. had no houses on offer, and asked him to drop her at the Agencia Nero.
Miss Shelley arrived on the 25th April. Between the 26th and 29th April she negotiated with Mr. and Mrs. Paddock. They said that they were estate agents selling the house which belonged to a Mr. Hallett, an Englishman who was living in Spain. As a result of those negotiations, she agreed to buy the house for £9,500. The Paddocks said they wanted a deposit. Miss Shelley asked, "How much?" Mrs. Paddock said, "How much have you got?" Miss Shelley said, "£80". She had brought that much money with her in cash. Mrs. Paddock said, "That will do". When Miss Shelley asked about the balance, the Paddocks said that she should pay it into their joint bank account at the Midland Bank in Wembley.
An agreement was drawn up in writing. Miss Shelley has shown it to us. "In Altea, near Alicante, on the 27th April, 1974, Carol Paddock representing Mr. Hallett, made an agreementbetween herself and Miss Shelley that Mr. Hallett sold to Miss Shelley the house No. 7 Calle la Salud, Altea, Alicante. The price for the sale was £9,500, paid in the following manner: £80 on the signing of the contract and £9,420 on or before the 6th June, 1974". There it was. The contract was signed then and there on the 27th April.
Miss Shelley did not know anything about the need to get exchange control permission. It is quite plain on our statutes ever since 1947 that if a person is going to pay money out of England or take it out, or pay money out of England for the benefit of a person here, it is contrary to section 5 and section 7 of the Exchange Control Act 1947. Miss Shelley did not know anything about that at all. She had not got permission. She did not know it was necessary.
Miss Shelley returned to England, She did not hear anything for a time. She became anxious. She was making arrangements to get her furniture sent to Spain. She wrote to the Paddocks about it. Eventually, not having received, any satisfactory answer from the Paddocks (as to the exact time when she could take possession), she took the bull by the horns. She arranged to go out by a flight to Spain in order to take over the house. To ensure that she could do so, she paid the balance of the purchase price (£9,420) into the Paddocks' bank account at' the Midland Bank in Wembley. On the self-same night, thinking she had paid for the house, she took the night flight to Alicante.
When she arrived at the house, the Paddocks' furniture was still there. She could not get her own furniture in. The long and short of it was that the Paddocks never passed the deeds over to her. The house was never conveyed to her at all. The truth was that they had no authority whatsoever from Mr. Hallettto make any contract of sale on his behalf. In fact, the paddocks were buying the house themselves on instalments from Mr. Hallett. They were not paying those instalments, and Mr. Halett, as he was entitled, was ready to take possession of the house from them. Miss Shelley never obtained possession of the house at all.
The Paddocks came to England. The money £9,420 was in the bank at Wembley. They took advantage of it and used it to help them get into a house in Gloucestershire.
Miss Shelley also came back to England. She was thoroughly disappointed. She had lost her money. She had also lost her furniture. She went to the Bank of England and explained that she knew nothing about the exchange control regulations. She also went to Scotland Yard and told them. The Paddocks were prosecuted. The case was brought to trial: but, for reasons which we have not been told, they were not convicted. Miss Shelley then brought an action against the Paddocks for damages for fraud.
The judge decided in her favour. The Paddocks appeal to this court. They are not here themselves. But they obtained legal aid. Counsel is appearing for them. The point...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Public Prosecutor v Intra Group (Holdings) Co Inc
...in Weston has some precedent in England: Hughes v Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society [1916] 2 KB 482 and Shelley v Paddock [1980] 2 WLR 647, both decisions of the Court of Appeal not cited in Weston . These decisions also proceeded on the basis that, because of the fraud, the parties......
- Salvesen v Simons
- Datuk Ong Kee Hui v Sinyium Anak Mutit
- Thackwell v Barclays Bank Plc
-
Illegality
...such approvals. 288 285 Holman , above note 236. 286 Ibid at 343 (Cowp). 287 [1987] 1 WLR 1116 (CA). See also Shelley v Paddock , [1980] 1 QB 348 (CA). Compare with Thackwell v Barclays Bank Plc , [1986] 1 All ER 676 (QB). 288 Strongman (1945) Ltd v Sincock , [1955] 2 QB 525 (CA). See also ......
-
La dynamique de l'impunite: autour de la defense d'ex turpi causa en common law des delits civils.
...Bar Rev. 67 a la p. 83. (47) Voir Jackson, supra, note 45 a la p. 464 (M. le juge Murphy). (48) Supra, note 41 a la p. 184, no 104. (49) [1980] Q.B. 348, [1980] All E.R. 1009 (C.A.) [ci-apres cite aux (50) Voir E.J. Weinrib, > (1989) 34 R.D. McGill 403 aux pp. 409-10, ou l'auteur traite d'u......