Property Disputes Investment Case Study 

Property mediation disputes, an action was brought for damages for £50,000 for misrepresentation and or breach of a contract for the sale by the defendant of a property to the claimant.

This was a long and protracted case which was very acrimonious, with legal fees on both sides spiralling out of control. It was alleged the defendant had made several untrue claims about a property, inducing the claimant to purchase it, the reason behind the purchase was to renovate it and sell it on for quick and substantial profit, with which the defendant was alleged to assist in.

As it transpired the defendant claimed he was never to be involved, and although he had interested parties who had made enquiries about the property, once it had been renovated he never claimed he had a firm buyer to introduce to the claimant, which is what the claimant believed to be the true position. The particulars of claim and indeed the defence was sketchy in parts, which led to further arguments over what had been pleaded and not, and possible amendments which would be subject to the court authorising.

It was established that in the course of previous dealings, the defendant had felt he had been ripped off by the claimant on another property to the tune of £35,000 and in order to recoup his losses and a bit extra for the hassle and stress that he had previously encountered he had offered this investment opportunity to the claimant which led to this entrenched dispute.

The claimant took aversion to this and advised he had not ripped off the defendant on that previous project, he agreed he did suffer a loss more to the value of £27,000 rather than £35,000, but that was beyond his control and he could not be held accountable for it, equally some of the explanation which was partly digested by a very suspicious defendant he actually agreed, certain issues which had led to his loss, he had never been made aware of, and in part he finally agreed that the claimant had indeed not ripped him off totally, his loss had been in part brought upon by himself and others who were privy to the deal, although he felt the claimant still had a part to play in it all.