Grieve v Enge

Grieve v Enge involved the plaintiffs, Grieve, seeking specific performance of a contract for the purchase of property from the first defendant, Enge. The second defendant, also involved in the transfer of the property, was joined in the proceedings. The plaintiffs claimed that Enge was not entitled to terminate the contract due to their failure to provide notice of finance, especially since Enge had also repudiated the contract. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argued that the transfer of the property to the second defendant was fraudulent and intended to defeat their claim, and that they hold an equitable interest in the property as against the second defendant’s interest.

The court had to determine whether Enge could lawfully terminate the contract for the plaintiffs' failure to provide notice of finance, despite Enge's own repudiation of the contract. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the transfer of the property was fraudulent and designed to thwart the plaintiffs' claim, and if the plaintiffs held an equitable interest in the property against the second defendant's interest.

The court held that Enge was not entitled to terminate the contract based on the plaintiffs' failure to provide notice of finance, as Enge had already repudiated the contract. The court found that the transfer of the property to the second defendant was fraudulent and intended to defeat the plaintiffs' claim. Consequently, the court declared that the contract should be specifically performed and that the second defendant holds her interest subject to the interests of the plaintiffs as purchasers.

The court ordered that the contract be specifically performed and that the second defendant holds her interest in the property subject to the interests of the plaintiffs as purchasers.