Patel v Ali [1984] Ch 283
High Court, Chancery Division — specific performance of a contract for the sale of a house and exceptional personal hardship.
Facts
The defendants jointly owned a house and agreed to sell it to the plaintiffs. Completion was delayed. By the time the court considered compelling the sale, the first defendant’s personal circumstances had seriously deteriorated.
She had suffered cancer and the amputation of a leg, and had three young children. Her husband had also been imprisoned. Her illness left her heavily dependent on relatives and friends for help. The purchasers sought specific performance, which would require the sale to be completed and the first defendant to leave her home.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issue
Could the court refuse specific performance because of exceptional hardship arising after the contract, even though the purchasers had not caused that hardship?
Decision
Goulding J refused specific performance. In the particular circumstances, compelling the first defendant to leave her home would cause hardship amounting to injustice. The long delay before the application was determined, which was not attributable to her conduct, was important to that conclusion.
The decision concerned the court’s discretion over the remedy. It did not treat the sale agreement as invalid or give a general right to abandon a contract when performance became difficult.
Reasoning
The court could take account of personal hardship which arose after the agreement and which had not been caused by the party seeking to enforce it. The relevant circumstances were not confined to matters connected with the property itself.
However, the threshold was demanding. A person who buys or sells a house ordinarily accepts the risk that performance may cause hardship to that person or their dependants, including hardship produced by unexpected events before completion. Only extraordinary and persuasive circumstances could justify refusing specific performance on this ground.
Legal principle
Patel v Ali illustrates the exceptional use of hardship to refuse an equitable remedy. Its importance lies in the combination of severe personal circumstances and substantial delay, rather than any rule that specific performance of land contracts is routinely withheld.
