||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 105 (Apr)
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Pill, Tuckey LJJ and Sir Christopher Slade
||Jonathan Rayner James QC (instructed by Courtney van der Borgh Shah) for the claimant.
||James Bonney QC and Rupert D'Cruz (instructed by Gandecha & Pau) for the defendants.
||10 April 2001
Estoppel - Deed - Attestation of signature - Defendants contesting validity of deed because signatures not attested in their presence in accordance with statutory requirement - Whether estoppel operating - Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) 1989, s 1.
Where the court was deciding whether to permit an estoppel in the face of statutory provisions, the court was entitled to consider the particular statutory provision, its purpose and the social policy behind it. On the facts, there was no statutory intention to exclude the operation of an estoppel in the circumstances of the instant case where the defendants contested the validity of the deed because their signatures had not been attested in their presence.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary