Orton v Collins and others: ChD 23 Apr 2007

The court considered how a Part 36 offer could be treated as accepted when it involved an agreement to transfer land, because the offer and its acceptance would not operate under the 1989 Act.
Held: The agreement was enforceable. The Civil Procedure Rules, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court, allowed the creation of rights and obligations over and above separate rights: ‘the solution to this case is not to be sought by creating two mutually exclusive pigeonholes marked ‘Contract’ and ‘Part 36 Settlement’. It seems to me that the acceptance of a Part 36 offer may well create a contract and probably does so in the vast majority of cases. When it does create a contract which requires further implementation (e.g. a contract to assign the copyright in a song) it may be possible to obtain specific performance. Or if the contract is broken a party may choose to start a new claim on that contract. But what I have to decide is whether a Part 36 acceptance that, for some reason, creates no contract can nevertheless be enforced by application to the court.
In my judgment, if parties who are before the court choose to employ machinery prescribed by the court’s rules in order to settle their dispute, they must be taken to submit to the consequences. Namely, that if the offer is accepted the court may enforce it. A party who makes a valid Part 36 offer, or one who accepts it, must be taken to be binding himself to submit to those consequences. ‘

Judges:

Peter Prescott QC

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 803 (Ch), [2007] 3 All ER 863, [2007] 1 WLR 2953

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSteadman v Steadman HL 1976
A mere payment of a sum of money might amount to an act of part performance, as might the act of a purchaser instructing solicitors to prepare and submit a draft conveyance or transfer, so as to leave asituation capable of enforcement in equity. . .
CitedMehta v J Pereira Fernandes SA ChD 7-Apr-2006
The parties were in dispute. The now respondent threatened winding up. The appellant had someone in his company send an email requesting an adjournment and apparently giving a personal guarantee to a certain amount. The application was adjourned, . .
CitedNweze and Another v Nwoko CA 29-Mar-2004
The parties had settled their dispute in an oral compromise agreement under which it was agreed that land would be sold at the best price reasonably obtainable. One now argued this was unenforceable as an agreement for the disposal of land requiring . .
CitedFirstpost Homes Ltd v Johnson and Others CA 14-Aug-1995
The parties disputed whether a contract had been made. The proposed contract was contained in a letter and a plan but only the plan was signed by both parties.
Held: The requirements of Section 2 had not been satisfied because it was the . .
CitedTimmins v Moreland Street Property Co Ltd CA 1958
The Court considered the effect of a note or memorandum evidencing the sale of a property where it was described as ‘6,8 and 41, Boundary Street, Shoreditch (freehold).’ It was sought to connect the signature on a purchaser’s deposit cheque with an . .
CitedHollingsworth v Humphrey CA 10-Dec-1987
The parties disputed the effect of a Tomlin order, an order made by the court that stayed the proceedings on the terms of a compromise ‘except for the purpose of carrying the said terms into effect’. The defendant had failed to honour the contract . .
CitedJennison v Baker CA 1972
Salmon LJ said: ‘The inherent power of the judges of the High Court to commit for contempt of court has existed from time immemorial . . The power exists to ensure justice shall be done. And solely to this end, it prohibits acts and words tending to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Land

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.251426