Chartwell Estate Agents Ltd v Fergies Properties SA & Anor
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE LAWS
- LORD JUSTICE DAVIS
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appeal regarding relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 for failing to exchange witness statements as ordered. Both parties did not comply with the court order for simultaneous exchange by 22 November 2013. Chartwell attributed the delay to inadequate disclosure from the defendants, who disagreed. Globe J granted Chartwell's application for relief from sanction, leading to the current appeal. The appeal court, referring to the principles set in Mitchell and by considering all circumstances, upheld the decision to grant relief, emphasizing the need to deal justly with applications. The appeal was dismissed, with concurrences noting the unusual nature of the case.
J U D G M E N T
This is the claimant's application, dated 27 th January 2014, for a variety of orders not all of which are opposed. The significant applications, which are opposed, are the claimant's application for an extension of time for the exchange of witness statements; the claimant's application for relief from sanctions for failing to serve witness statements in time, and the claimant's application for permission to amend its cost budget.
The claimant, Chartwell Estate Agents Ltd., are estate agents. The first defendant, Fergies Properties, were the owners of 19 Wilton Crescent in Knightsbridge. The second defendant, Hyam Lehrer, is the solicitor who at all material times has been acting for the first defendant.
The action relates to the claimant's claim for commission upon the sale of 19 Wilton Crescent by the first defendant to Radovan Vitek on or about 22 nd April 2013 for £25million. The basis of the claim surrounds an agency agreement, completed on or about 14 th May 2012, between the claimant and the first defendant, as signed by the second defendant on the first defendant's behalf. Within the agreement a commission fee of 1.5% plus VAT is referred to.
The agency agreement came into being at a time when 19 Wilton Crescent was about to be sold by the first defendant to Vitek for £27.5million. However, no contract for sale was concluded; Vitek withdrew from the sale and the property remained on the market until Vitek made a further offer to purchase the property in February 2013 for the reduced figure of £25million. That sum was accepted by the first defendant and the sale was effected on or about 22 nd April 2013 for £25million.
The claimant claims commission of 1.5% plus VAT which amounts to £450,000.
The pleadings identify various differences of interpretation as to the events during 2012 and 2013 and the effectiveness of the agency agreement. The defendants deny that any commission is payable.
It is not for me to resolve those disputes at this hearing. They are trial issues. I am concerned with case management issues.
The procedural history of the claim is as follows: The claim form was issued on 8 th May 2013 and it was served together with the particulars of claim. The defence is dated 20 th May 2013. There is an undated reply which was served some time before 5 th July 2013. On 5 th July 2013 the defendants issued a Part 18 request for further information. On 24 th July 2013 the claimant served its response to the Part 18 request