Merer v Fisher and Another: CA 13 May 2003

A right of pre-emption had misdescribed the property when it was registered. The land was transferred without regard to the right of pre-emption. It was found as a fact that no money passed for the transfer, and the claimants said the unregistered right of pre-emption was, under the Act, only void as against a purchaser for value. The defendant sought to challenge the finding as to consideration.
Held: The question on appeal is whether the evidence on which the judge did not make findings, expressly or by implication, demonstrates that the judge’s conclusion on the question as to the existence of the arrangement was plainly wrong. That was not established, and that part of the judgement stood. The claimant sought specific performance, the judge had refused it, but Sudbrook was to be distinguished and an order for specific performance granted.
Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Mummery And Lady Justice Arden
[2003] EWCA Civ 747
Bailii
Land Charges Act 1925 4(6)
England and Wales
Citing:
DistinguishedPritchard v Briggs CA 1980
A conveyance of part in 1944 gave a right of pre-emption over retained land. The vendor’s successors the let the retained land to the plaintiff with an option to buy the freehold reversion. The retained land was sold to the defendants in purported . .
CitedTodd v Adams and Chope (Trading as Trelawney Fishing Co) (The ‘Margaretha Maria’) CA 2002
Where the correctness of a finding of primary fact or of inference is in issue (on appeal), it cannot be a matter of simple discretion how an appellate court approaches the matter. Once the appellant has shown a real prospect (justifying permission . .
CitedAssicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
CitedSS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporack HL 1927
The court discussed the weight to be given by an appellate court to findings of fact made by the court of first instance.
Held: Not to have seen the witnesses puts appellate judges in a permanent position of disadvantage as against the trial . .
CitedEnglish v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
CitedIn Re Duomatic Ltd ChD 1969
Payments were made by a company by way of remuneration to directors without complying with the company’s articles of association in that no resolution authorising the directors to receive remuneration had ever been passed in a general meeting of the . .
DistinguishedSudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton HL 1982
The grantors of an option, which contained a machinery for fixing the price, had refused to appoint a valuer and that made it impossible for the contractual machinery for the valuation of the option price to work. The House of Lords held that the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.182592