Gregory Lee v Ian Harrison and others (CL 1 of 2018) [2019] TCASC 6 (28 November 2019)

Case summary

The Court dismissed the Defendants' application to strike out the claim for specific performance and damages in lieu, the Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his Statement of Claim save for adding the claim for rectification. The discharge of the 6th Defendant's debt does not vitiate the agreement between the parties. Notwithstanding any variation thereto, there is still a valid and binding agreement capable of being performed upon.  The Defendants in their submissions have not established that the Plaintiff's claim falls under any of the grounds for striking out contained in Order 18 Rule 19 Rules of the Supreme Court 2000. The Court accepts that so long as the Plaintiff's statement of claim or the particulars disclose some cause of action or raise some question fit to be decided by a Judge or a jury, which in this case it did, it should not be struck out Morroe v Lawson [1915] 31 TLR 4218, CA and Wenlock v Moloney [1965] 2 All ER 871, CA [CONSIDERED]. As per rectification, the Plaintiff has not established a case as it is necessary to show that the parties were in complete agreement on the terms of their contract, but by an error wrote them down wrongly; rectification is concerned with contract and documents, not with intentions Frederick E Rose (London) Ltd. v William H Pim Jnr & Co Ltd [1953] 2 QB 450, 461 [CONSIDERED]. It was not the Plaintiff's case that all terms of the sale and purchase had been agreed and simply documented incorrectly but rather that the agreement was signed by mistake on his part and that certain terms had been removed from the final draft after it was signed.

---