Tucker v Hutchinson and another
Tucker v Hutchinson and another
- 1987
- Property and Compensation Reports (1987) 54 PCR 106-113(8) .
CA 15 January 1987. An appeal by Tucker(T), from a decision refusing to demand from Hutchinson and Kempton(H), an undertaking in damages as a condition for allowing them to maintain a caution on the register of T`s land. Briefly, T and H had entered into a contract for sale by T of property in London SE15. Completion was conditional upon H obtaining either an established use certificate or planning permission from the planning authority, to use the property as three self contained flats and a basement. H registered a caution at the Land Registry to protect their interests. Three months later, T began proceedings for declarations that the contract no longer subsisted and that it had been repudiated by H because they had not made an application to the planning authority. T also sought an order that the caution be vacated. The judge held that there was a triable issue as to whether or not the contract still subsisted and there was no justification for discharging the caution. Counsel fo
REGISTERED LAND
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
VENDOR AND PURCHASER
CA 15 January 1987. An appeal by Tucker(T), from a decision refusing to demand from Hutchinson and Kempton(H), an undertaking in damages as a condition for allowing them to maintain a caution on the register of T`s land. Briefly, T and H had entered into a contract for sale by T of property in London SE15. Completion was conditional upon H obtaining either an established use certificate or planning permission from the planning authority, to use the property as three self contained flats and a basement. H registered a caution at the Land Registry to protect their interests. Three months later, T began proceedings for declarations that the contract no longer subsisted and that it had been repudiated by H because they had not made an application to the planning authority. T also sought an order that the caution be vacated. The judge held that there was a triable issue as to whether or not the contract still subsisted and there was no justification for discharging the caution. Counsel fo
REGISTERED LAND
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
VENDOR AND PURCHASER