Yaxley v Gotts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Yaxley v Gotts [2000] Ch 162 is an English legal case. The Court of Appeal judgment was released on 24 June 1999. The case deals with whether section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 which requires that contracts be in writing prevents an oral contract from taking effect where otherwise an interest would arise by proprietary estoppel.[1]


Yaxley was a self-employed builder who attempted to persuade Gotts to lend him money for the purchase of a building. Gotts instead bought the building but agreed Yaxley could have the bottom floor in return for renovating the other flats and managing the building. After performing the work at his own cost and time. Yaxley argued that an oral agreement between himself and Mr. Gotts was to reward him with ownership of the ground floor of the building. Gotts failed to convey the title deeds in the name of Yaxley. When the two fell out Yaxley brought legal proceedings as a plaintiff in court.


The judge in the case took most of the evidence of Yaxley, but would not factor in the evidence given by the defendant, Gotts.[2] In the end, the Judge found an oral contract between the plaintiff and defendant existed. This entitled the plaintiff to ownership in the form of a 99 year lease on the portion of the structure per the agreement.[3]


Later, when Gotts filed an appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed Gotts' claim that the claimant was entitled only to a portion of interest in the lease.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?storycode=2006007
  2. ^ "Judgement in yaxley v gotts". Retrieved 22 June 2012. 
  3. ^ "Tuesday Law Report: Remedy although agreement was void". The Independent. London. 6 July 1999. Retrieved 22 June 2012.