Northstar Land Limited v Maitland Brooks Jacqueline Brooks: CA 14 Jun 2006

The parties’ solicitors were to complete the sale and purchase of land. The purchaser asked for an extension of time beyond the appointed hour to complete. The vendor’s solicitor responded that he would take his client’s instructions. The purchaser said this amounted to an estoppel despite the absence of any explicit promise that the time would be extended. The court was asked also as to whether a solicitor could make a payment from uncleared funds, and what was the latest time for completion in a day.
Held: No estoppel arose. The vendor’s solicitor had made no promise to provide an answer and was under no obligation to provide one. The judge had been correct to hold that completion had to take place by the close of the working day, and not at midnight, and that payment could only take place using cleared funds.


Ward LJ, Smith LJ, Cresswell LJ


[2006] EWCA Civ 756, Times 17-Jul-2006




England and Wales


CitedLegione v Hateley 1982
(High Court of Australia) Purchasers of land were put on notice that unless they paid the price by 10th August the contract of sale would be rescinded. On 9th August the purchasers’ solicitor telephoned the vendor’s solicitors and spoke to the . .
CitedReardon Smith Line Ltd v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food HL 1963
Lord Devlin said: ‘If I employ a builder to repair my dwelling-house and he agrees to complete the work within six days or pay a penalty, that does not mean that he can keep me awake by working from midnight to midnight in order to finish the job. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel, Legal Professions

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242520