Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2007] All ER (D) 101 (Jun)
Court: Chancery Division

Alan Steinfeld QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court

Representation James Hanham (instructed by Hexstalls LLP) for the defendant.
  Chima Umezurike (instructed by Osibanjo & Co Solicitors) for the claimant.
Judgment Dates: 12 June 2007


Sale of land - Deposit - Forfeiture - Contract between claimant purchaser and defendant vendor purporting to exclude statutory provision - Purchaser failing to complete - Vendor rescinding contract and forfeiting deposit - Purchaser claiming return of deposit - Whether parties being able to exclude statutory provision - , s 49(2).

The Case

Sale of land Deposit. It was not possible for parties to a contract for the sale of land to agree between themselves to exclude the courts jurisdiction under s49(2) of the . Section 49(2) did not confer a right or benefit upon parties. What it did was to confer jurisdiction upon the courts to exercise its discretion in favour of a purchaser. A provision in a contract which purported to exclude s49(2) was a provision which purported to oust the jurisdiction of the court and was on grounds of public policy void.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.