The defendant solicitors acted in obtaining and holding a deposit on the sale of land. They issued interpleader proceedings which decided that the deposit was payable to the purchaser. The vendor then sued the solicitors in negligence. The solicitors were faced with two courts making different and contradictory decisions on the same facts as to the destination of the deposit, and claimed that the decision of the first court was incorrect.
Held: The solicitor had initiated the interpleader proceedings, and could not be heard to complain about it. The application was an abuse of process. The claim in negligence succeeded because the defendants had failed to secure for their client an enforceable bipartite agreement under which the deposit would be forfeit if the prospective purchaser did not proceed. No issue estoppel arose in their favour because they were not parties in any real sense to the original proceedings.
Laddie J, sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal, said (as to Chillingworth): ‘All the judge was saying was that if that [the 10 July document] had been a binding contract, suitable wording could have been inserted into it to make the deposit non-refundable.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Mr Justice Laddie
Citations:
Times 04-Dec-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1956, [2002] 2 EGCS 100, [2002] NPC 2, [2002] QB 902, [2002] PNLR 19, [2002] 2 WLR 842, [2002] Lloyd’s Rep PN 272
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
Explained – Chillingworth v Esche CA 1923
The purchasers agreed in writing to purchase land ‘subject to a proper contract to be prepared by the vendors’ solicitors’ accepting andpound;240 ‘as deposit and in part payment of the said purchase money’. A contract was prepared by the vendor’s . .
Cited by:
Cited – Sharma and Another v Simposh Ltd CA 23-Nov-2011
The parties created an oral (and therefore void) contract for a development, the claimants paid a deposit, expressed to be non-refundable, and the defendant builders completed the building work. The buyers backed out. The developer now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice, Estoppel
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167323
