In this case the court had to decide whether the parties had reached a binding compromise agreement in relation to the items which were the subject of the claim. They had previously agreed a sum of GBP 30,000 for extras required at Seeney's new property. However, Gleeson maintained that the agreement was 'subject to contract' and conditional upon the parties concluding a formal contract.
The court considered the principles set out in a number of cases, including RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh & Company KG (UK Production)  UKSC 14, which confirmed an objective appraisal of the parties words and conduct is required to establish whether they intended to enter into a legally binding arrangement. Coulson J concluded that they did reach a binding agreement concerning the value of the extras. He noted in particular that the parties had never used the words 'subject to contract' in spite of solicitors being involved on both sides. The judgment confirms the importance of parties recording with clarity the circumstances and scope of any agreement between them.
To read more, please click here.