Tufton v Sperni
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 July 1952 |
| Neutral Citation | [1952] EWCA Civ J0725-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 25 July 1952 |
[1952] EWCA Civ J0725-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS (Sir Raymond Evershed)
LORD JUSTICE JENKINS and
LORD JUSTICE MORRIS
Counsel for the Appellant SIR GEOFFREY HUTCHINSON. Q.C. and MR LEON MacLAREN, instructed by Messrs Cassavetti, Coustas & Company.
Counsel for the Respondent MR C.R.D. RICHMOUNT, and
MR ALAN A. SPEARS, instructed by Messrs wright Company.
THE MASTER OP THE ROLLS: This is both a shocking and distressing case; shocking because of the nature of the transaction which is in question, and the extent to which, if the transaction is allowed to stand, the Plaintiff has been there by worsted, and distressing in large measure by reason of the length of time during which this litigation has lasted; the greater part of eight days in this Court, and 17 days in the Court below, and during no lees than five of those days the Plaintiff was cross-examined.
The Plaintiff, Tufton, I understand, is an Englishman. At the material time he was some 30 years old. He had embraced with all the ardour of a convert the religion of Islam. In regard to matters affecting his faith and the cause of Moslems, he was (in the language of the learned Judge) "credulous and unbusinesslike" – a fact which, according to the Judge's findings, the Defendant Sperni must have realised (see Judgment at page 44) – and which is well illustrated by the circumstance that by improvident advances to co-religionists and otherwise, he has succeeded in losing substantially the whole of his private fortune of £30,000. The learned Judge also stated that he was as a witness (inter alia) vague and indefinite – a fact not to be wondered at having regard to the undue length of his cross-examination. But the Judge held him also to be entirely honest. He is, we were told, an epileptic. I interpose here to say for convenience and clarity I will refer to the two parties by their surnames only, but I hope it will not be thought that I am, in any way, offensive in so doing.
The Defendant, Sperni, is a man of wholly different calibre. Though also at the material time a Moslem by religion (to which fact is attributable Tufton's meeting with him) his adherence to that faith was never ardent and has since been wholly exhausted. By many years Tufton's senior, Sperni was by profession a structural engineer, "wide awake" (in the Judge's language) in business affairs, and (at leastaccording to a letter written to him on page 17 of the Correspondence by another Moslem, one Abdul Ghafur, a member of the English Bar and of Lincoln's Inn, to whose somewhat dubious part in the narrative I shall later refer) a man experienced in house property with political ambitions. In civic affaire he had indeed held high and responsible office, having been Mayor of the Borough of St. Pancras. As a witness the learned Judge ascribed to him the uncomplimentary epithets of "unsatisfactory", "unreliable", "uncandid", and "evasive." Upon one vital matter at least, he indubitably lied to Tufton and deliberately deceived him. As a consequence, though Tufton's Action was dismissed, the Judge deprived Sperni of his costs.
It is to set aside a transaction between these two persons, so widely different in qualities and character, that the present proceedings are brought; and it must be said at once that it is of no avail to Tufton merely to draw attention to the disastrously improvident nature (from his point of view) of the bargain that was made, or to the unprepossessing characteristics of Sperni and the practical disadvantage suffered by such a man as Tufton in dealing with him. To borrow the language of Lord Macnaghten in Bradford v. Pickles reported in 1895 Appeal Cases at page 601, Sperni's conduct may be shocking to the moral philospher, but unless it be unlawful, Tufton cannot complain of it in the Courts.
The transaction in question consisted of the sale by Sperni to Tufton of the former's house, No, 36 Doughty Street in London at the price of £10,500 or, (when there is added thereto the cost of certain furniture and fittings, solicitors' costs and stamp duty and other expenses) for a total sum of £11,427. 8s, 4d. The price, according to the expert evidence which the learned Judge accepted, was approximately double the true value of that which was sold, having due regard to the nature and terms of the sale. But it is perhaps not so muchthe extravagance of the price as the forms and terms of the many documents executed in the course of the transaction which, on the face of them, startle the mind. Certainly I have never in my limited experience met with a comparable transaction. I will therefore refer to the documents immediately, and at length.
The first is dated the 10th August, 1946, with also the Moslem date in the handwriting of Tufton purporting to be written from the Lion Hotel, Petty Curry, Cambridge, but in fact written at 36 Doughty Street, and it is addressed to Sperni at Doughty Street. It is in these terms: "Dear Sir, I hereby agree to purchase your freehold house 36 Doughty Street, London, W.C.1. for the sum of £10,500, payable as follows:- £5,500 in cash and £5,000 to remain on mortgage at 5 1/2% per annum, repayable within 6 months. Possession to be given within the twenty-four months from date of completion and completion to be made on the 27th of January 1947 subject to contract on your part. This offer to remain open to you for 6 months from the above date, Yours truly, T.H.S. Tufton."
The next letter, also dated the 10th August in Sperni's handwriting, is addressed to Tufon at the Lion Hotel, Petty Curry, Cambridge; "Dear Sir, I hereby accept your offer to purchase the freehold No. 36 Doughty Street, London, W.C.1. for £10,500 and as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein dated the 10th August 1946, John Sperni."
Then also on the same date also in Sperni's handwriting, there is a letter to Tufton at the Lion Hotel, Petty Curry, Cambridge: "Dear Sir, I hereby accept your offer to purchase the freehold of No. 36 Doughty Street, London, W.C.1. for £10,500 and as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein dated the 10th August 1946." Then there has been added "subject to Contract on my part. John Sperni"; and underneath is written: "I agree to and accept this T.H.S, Tufton."
Then next, still under the same date, is the following document in Tufton's writing: "I, T.H.S. Tufton, Hereby acknowledge myself to be the purchaser of the Property herein described for the sum of £10,500 and I have paid to you as the Vendor the sum of £1,050 as a deposit and in part payment of the purchase money, and I hereby agree to pay the remainder of such purchase money and to complete the purchase according to the within conditions of sale" – I should say there were none – "As witness my hand this day of 10th August 1946. Purchase money £10,500; Deposit £1,050; Total £9,450. (Signed) T.H.S. Tufton. As the Vendor, I hereby confirm this sale and acknowledge the receipt of the above-mentioned deposit. (Signed) J.C. Sperni. Abstract of Title to be sent to: Messrs Wainwright & Co., Solicitors, 9 Staple Inn, Holborn, London, W.C.1."
Next there is a letter dated August 14, 1946, with also the Moslem date in Tufton's handwriting: "Dear Mr Sperni, Assalamo Alaikum, Further to the Agreement between us for the purchase of your house dated August 14 1946, I wish to assure you that I will not do anything to inconvenience you or any member of your family bf asking you to give up possession of your house strictly on the date specified in the above agreement and that should you decide to remain in possession for a further period until you have found a suitable premises for yourself and your family I hereby agree to give you such time extra to do so as you may desire. This letter I agree shall form part of the above agreement and shall be attached there to and shall be treated as an amendment of same accordingly. Yours faithfully, T.H.S. Tufton."
The next document is also dated the 14th August 1946, and is a typed document with emendations, I shall not read the whole of this, but I will read a good deal of it: "An agreement made this 14th day of August 1946 between Mr John Sperni of 36, Doughty Street, London, W.C.1. Chartered StructuralEngineer, hereinafter called the Vendor and T.H.S. Tufton Esq., of The Lion Hotel, Petty Curry, Cambridge, Gentleman, hereinafter called the Purchaser of the other part. Whereas by a contract of sale dated the 10th August 1946, and made between the Vendor of the one part and Purchaser of the other part, whereby the Vendor sold and the Purchaser purchase, the Freehold premises known as and being number 36, Doughty Street, London, W.C.1. for the sum of £10,500, and on the terms and conditions therein contained and Whereas the Vendor and the Purchaser for their mutual interests and convenience now desire to amend the said contract of sale as hereinafter appearing. Now these present witnesseth and agree to amend and add to the said contract of sale as follows- (1) The date of completion of the Purchase shall be the 24th day of September 1946. (2) The whole of the Purchase sum namely £10,500 shall be paid on completion of the Purchase namely the 24th day of September 1946. Subject to completion as set out in Clause two here of. (3) Possession of the premises shall be given by the Purchaser to the Vendor on the (blank) day of (blank) 194 (blank.) The Vendor in the meantime exercises the sole option here by now granted to him to continue in occupation and possession of the said premises on the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement attached here to and signed by the Vendor and Purchaser. (4) The Vendor shall until possession of the said Premises is given to the Purchaser, keep same insured against fire in the sum of £(blank) with The Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd., and pay...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Libyan Investment Authority (incorporated under the laws of the State of Libya) v Goldman Sachs International
...of domination between them. There are a number of Court of Appeal authorities that make clear that that is not required: see for example Tufton v Sperni [1952] 2 TLR 516 and Goldsworthy v Brickell [1987] Ch 378 where the court held that a relationship of influence well short of domination c......