A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Download PDF Print page
Published 25 septiembre 2019
The High Court delivered a sobering reminder in June of this year in respect of the need for parties to be clear as to their intentions with regard to heads of terms.
The case of Abberley v Abberley involved a family land dispute. At a mediation the parties reached agreement on how the land would be divided up and this was written out and signed by the parties’ respective solicitors. The agreement was a short form handwritten set of heads of terms.
The case involved a dispute as to whether the heads of terms comprised a binding agreement between the parties. The High Court found that the commercial essentials were set out in a signed document with sufficient certainty to amount to a binding agreement. The fact that attempts were made to agree further details post signature did not detract from that certainty. Nor did the fact that a more formal document was envisaged preclude the existence of a binding agreement.
Whilst perhaps specific and unusual facts are involved in this case we should still consider it as a warning. Take the time to look afresh at your heads of terms before issue and consider:
London - Walbrook
+44 (0)20 7894 6645
By Martha Grekos
By Mereaira Jones
By Gwyneth Barton, Guy Knight
By John Dunlop
By Gemma Leonard
By Rosa-Maria Kane
By Mary Waters
By Elizabeth Coton
By Stephanie Bagshaw, Clare Hartley
By Andrew Hollier
By Stephanie Bagshaw
By Joanna Grech
By Stephanie Bagshaw, Fiona Gill
By Daniel Kendall
By Andrew Morgan, Joe Whimpenny
By Paul Best
By Andrew Morgan, Mereaira Jones
By Chloe Postlethwaite
By Daniel Kendall, Sarah Pickering
By Stephanie Bagshaw, Matthew Stokes