Gibson v Manchester City Council Case Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Gibson v Manchester City Council Case Summary...

Description

Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979) Gibson ………………………….. Plaintiff Manchester City Council…………... Defendant Citation: 1 WLR 294 Court: Court of Appeal Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction of all the judges was that the appeal was allowed. Judges: There are 5 judges within this case and they are Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Diplock and Lord Keith of Kinkel Ratio: unanimously Outcome and orders: The outcome was that the appeal was approved and the order was for there to be an open contract for the sale of the house to Mr Gibson at £2,180. Facts Summary The Manchester City Council was controlled by the Conservative Party, which constructed a scheme that allowed tenants living in council housing to have the opportunity to purchase the freehold title of the house that they were currently residing in. In promoting this scheme, Mr Gibson received a letter from the Council in relation to his house.The Council letter stated that they “may be prepared to sell the house” to Mr Gibson. In furtherance, Mr Gibson completed and sent back an application to further the process of buying the house. However, before the formal contracts were made the Labour party took control of the local council. This meant that the scheme put in place by the Conservative party was now abolished. The ownership of the house is in dispute because there were no formal contracts made however the application was lodged to proceed with formal contracts being written up. Mr Gibson wants to purchase the freehold title of the house and the Manchester City Council would like to deny this purchase and use this case as an example for others that are in similar situations as Mr Gibson. Dispute whether or not a contract was formed Procedural history This case is an appeal case which was started by Mr Gibson at the Manchester County Court. Lord Denning MR, Geoffrey Lane LJ and Ormrod LJ were judges in the county court. Lord Justice Ormrod and Lord Denning had similar views in which both disagreed with the issue stating there should be more evidence. Geoffrey Lane LJ was the only judge to disagree with Lord Justice Ormrod and Lord Denning, therefore, the case being denied.

Legal issues The legal consequences of the outcome of this case is that if Gibson wins the Manchester City Council will have to provide the same outcome to other citizens that were in a similar situation to Mr Gibson. The dispute is framed by a legal problem as there wasn't a formal contract written up yet for Mr Gibson about the freehold title of his house before the Labour party took over however, there was sufficient evidence to prove that there were agreements to before the Labour party took over. This case raises questions such as although there were no formal contracts written up is the agreement between the Council and Mr Gibson still upheld? Did the County court make a mistake with their judgement?

Is this a legally binding contract Or valid contract? Was there offer and was there acceptance? Sources of Law The judges used … ASK IN SEMINAR Legal Reasoning The judges decide what law applies by the evidence produced throughout the case. The judges do view similar facts differently with some agreeing that there was no offer therefore there could be no acceptance as there was no contract. Ratio Decidendi - principle that is general The reason for the approval of the case was from the evidence provided to the judges in which there was a first letter to outline what may happen if Mr Gibson sent his application in and another letter after the application was sent in to provide that the Council had accepted and were willing to write a formal contract. There was a consensus amongst the judges as they all unanimously allowed the appeal. There were some similar views however Lord Edmund-Davies and Lord Russell of Killowen came to the same conclusion however had different reasons compared to Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Diplock and Lord Keith of Kinkel. A valid legal binding contract needs offer and acceptance Result

Gibson won and the appeal was allowed....