The recent case of Alexander Kuznetsov and London Borough of Camden serves as a reminder of the fundamental elements of a property sale contract and the risks of unintentionally exchanging contracts.
This article is taken from May's public matters newsletter. Click here to view more articles from this issue.
The recent case of Alexander Kuznetsov and London Borough of Camden serves as a reminder of the fundamental elements of a property sale contract and the risks of unintentionally exchanging contracts.
This case centres around the attempts by London Borough of Camden to acquire the long leasehold interest that Alexander Kuznetsov held in a property that the council was seeking to redevelop. The council had attempted to negotiate the purchase with Mr Kuznetsov for a number of years but eventually proceeded with a compulsory purchase order in order to acquire the property. Mr Kuznetsov claimed that an exchange of correspondence culminating in a letter from the council dated 16 February 2017 created a binding open contract for the purchase of the property.
The letter from the council set out a recommendation that Mr Kuznetsov obtained a Red Book valuation and that on receipt of the valuation the council “will be willing to purchase your property at that value and pay compensation and all reasonable expenses”. Mr Kuznetsov claims to have added to the bottom of the letter “Thank you! I accept your offer and will instruct a valuer, as requested” and then added his signature and date before sending it back to the council. The council denies ever having received the letter.
The council was initially successful in striking out the claim but Mr Kuznetsov sought leave to appeal and it is that appeal that was recently heard and reported on. One of the grounds of appeal concerned whether the exchange of correspondence amounted to a contract in accordance with Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) (the ‘1989 Act’).
Section 2 of the 1989 Act states: “2(1) A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each.”
The judge believed that Mr Kuznetsov had a real prospect of establishing at a full trial that the letter dated 16 February 2017 as countersigned by him amounted to an open contract for the sale of his property and that contract complied with Section 2 of the 1989 Act. The letter set out the parties, identified the property, established a mechanism for calculating the price and was signed by both parties (allegedly, the council denies Mr Kuznetsov ever signed and returned the letter – but that is a matter for trial). This dispute will therefore go forward to a trial.
This case reminds us all of the need to be clear that negotiations are simply non-binding negotiations; that exchanges of letters can land parties in hot water if the intention of one of the parties is that a formal contract still needs to be drafted and negotiated. It certainly shows the benefit of marking letters with wording such as ‘subject to contract’ to make clear that further steps are required before parties become bound to purchase land. We will need to keep an eye out for the outcome of the trial.
Law firm Browne Jacobson has collaborated with Wiltshire Council and Christ Church Business School on the launch event of The Council Company Best Practice and Innovation Network, a platform which brings together academic experts and senior local authority leaders, allowing them to share best practice in relation to council companies.
In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.
Announced in September but scrapped on 17 November the investment zone proposals were very short lived. The proposal has now morphed into the proposal for a smaller number of clustered zones earmarked for investment.
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
On 2 November 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the much awaiting case of Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30. The Court’s judgment suggests that the long established practice of using drop-in applications is in fact much more restricted than previously thought. This judgment therefore has significant implications for both the developers and local planning authorities.
In ‘failure to remove’ claims, the claimant alleges abuse in the family home and asserts that the local authority should have known about the abuse and/or that they should have removed the claimant from the family home and into care earlier.
Across the UK, homelessness is an urgent crisis, and one that is set to grow amid the rising cost of living. Local authorities are at the forefront of responding to this crisis, but with a lack of properties that are suitable for social housing across the UK, vulnerable individuals and families are often housed in temporary accommodation.
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
