Image from Google Jackets

Mohamed Bashir v Mohammad Safraz Ali and Mohamed Arshad Khan [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2011Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2011] EWCA Civ 707, 20 June 2011. Concerns a case where a property was sold at auction with an inaccurate description. The sale particulars indicated that the property consisted of a ground floor retail property and a first floor flat. Both the sellers (MSA and MAK) and the buyer, MB, believed this to be correct. In fact, the property also included a ground floor studio flat. The purchaser, MB, was appealing against a previous decision that the contract should be executed to sell the flat to MB subject to a 125 year lease on both the ground floor and first floor flats. "Held": there should be no interference with the language used in the documentation: the sale was of the registered freehold title to the property subject to the only two tenancies identified in the documentation: namely the existing shop lease and the lease-back of the first floor flat. The previous Judge's interpretation involves subjecting the sale to an incumbrance which is nowhere mentioned, and the appeal was therefore allowed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 153573-2001

[2011] EWCA Civ 707, 20 June 2011. Concerns a case where a property was sold at auction with an inaccurate description. The sale particulars indicated that the property consisted of a ground floor retail property and a first floor flat. Both the sellers (MSA and MAK) and the buyer, MB, believed this to be correct. In fact, the property also included a ground floor studio flat. The purchaser, MB, was appealing against a previous decision that the contract should be executed to sell the flat to MB subject to a 125 year lease on both the ground floor and first floor flats. "Held": there should be no interference with the language used in the documentation: the sale was of the registered freehold title to the property subject to the only two tenancies identified in the documentation: namely the existing shop lease and the lease-back of the first floor flat. The previous Judge's interpretation involves subjecting the sale to an incumbrance which is nowhere mentioned, and the appeal was therefore allowed.