Harris v Kent and Another: ChD 14 Mar 2007

The claimant said the defendant had failed to complete his promise to arrange for the issue of shares in a company in return for a loan. The defendant denied the contract.
Held: It had been agreed to treat the claimant as a fifty per cent participant, and an estoppel had been created as against the defendants.
As to damages: ‘The ‘but for the breach’ analysis called for by the application of the basic equitable principle requires the court to decide what would hypothetically have happened if, instead of committing the breach of trust, the Kents as trustees had in all respects complied with their fiduciary obligations. In this respect equity follows the law, in which for example damages are quantified by reference to the difference between the effect of the breach and the position which the claimant would have been in, had the defendant complied with his contract. ‘ Damages were awarded accordingly.
Briggs J
[2007] EWHC 463 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWalsh v Lonsdale CA 1882
Lonsdale purported to grant to Walsh a seven year lease with rent payable in advance. The lease was not embodied in a deed, and when Walsh went into possession, an annual tenancy with rent payable in arrear was created. Walsh did not pay in advance, . .
CitedTarget Holdings Ltd v Redferns (A Firm) and Another HL 21-Jul-1995
The defendant solicitors had acted for a purchaser, Crowngate, which had agreed to buy a property from a company called Mirage for andpound;775,000. Crowngate had arranged however that the property would first be passed through a chain of two . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 February 2021; Ref: scu.250019