Publity v Chesterhill [2016] EWHC 1994 (Ch)
Publity v Chesterhill [2016] EWHC 1994 (Ch)
The Claimant failed to establish that a binding tenancy had arisen, because (1) the parties were not ad idem on commencement date; (2) a dated signature was not the same as a dated agreement, and the latter was required; (3) there had in any event been an intervening counter-offer, so the original offer was no longer capable of acceptance. The Defendant was not entitled to retain monies which the Claimant had initially paid as a deposit, and which the parties had later agreed would be used as advance rent, notwithstanding he had expended those monies in effecting works to the premises at the Claimant's request. Caroline Shea QC represented the successful Defendant.
Judgment can be found below.
Download DocumentBack to news listing
