Tucker v Hutchinson and another
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1987) 54 PCR 106-113(8)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: 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| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS38179 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 9042-1001 |
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