Al Dakhili v Al Kheurallah

In Al Dakhili v Al Kheurallah, the plaintiff sought specific performance of a deed of settlement and release between the parties. The deed involved three barbershop businesses, including the assignment of a lease for one of the businesses. The plaintiff sought specific performance of the deed, particularly the clause concerning the lease assignment, due to the first defendant's failure to cooperate in obtaining the landlord's consent. The first defendant, who was incarcerated and later detained by immigration authorities, had been legally represented during many directions hearings but withdrew instructions to their solicitors and became self-represented. The first defendant's belated application to adjourn the hearing was refused, and they proceeded unrepresented on the first day of the hearing.

The court had to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the deed, particularly regarding the lease assignment. This involved interpreting the deed, considering the principles of equitable remedies, and addressing potential defences such as delay. The court also had to consider the procedural fairness in dealing with the unrepresented litigant and the implications of the first defendant's conduct on the application for specific performance. Additionally, the court had to determine whether an order for specific performance precluded it from subsequently addressing other unresolved issues under the deed.

The court reasoned that the deed was clear in its terms and that specific performance was an appropriate remedy given the first defendant's failure to cooperate in obtaining the landlord's consent for the lease assignment. The court noted that the first defendant's delay and lack of cooperation in complying with the deed's requirements constituted a valid defence of delay. However, the court found that the delay was not so significant as to preclude specific performance, particularly as the plaintiff had acted promptly once the first defendant had provided the necessary information. The court ordered specific performance subject to the plaintiff's undertaking not to raise any estoppel argument if the first defendant subsequently claimed under the deed. The court also made orders to ensure procedural fairness to the first defendant, including the provision of an interpreter and consideration of the first defendant's circumstances.

The final orders included specific performance of the deed regarding the lease assignment, subject to the plaintiff's undertaking. The court also ordered that the first defendant provide an interpreter and considered their circumstances in determining the procedural fairness of the proceedings. The court further ordered that any subsequent claims by the first defendant under the deed would be subject to the court's supervision and that the plaintiff was not to raise any estoppel argument in such claims.