Regal BA v Jun Zhang: High Court awards damages over failed sale of £16.9m mansion formerly rented by Harry Kane

The Chancery Division has awarded a property developer damages for breach of contract after a buyer twice failed to complete the purchase of a North London mansion previously rented by Harry Kane.

His Honour Judge Hacon delivered judgement on 23 June 2026 in Regal BA Limited v Jun Zhang [2026] EWHC 1446 (Ch), finding that Regal had sold the property competently on the open market and that the resale price governed the measure of its loss.

The property and the defaults

High Trees, a seven-bedroom residence near Bishops Avenue, North London, was developed by Regal and rented to Harry Kane and his family between 2018 and 2021. In March 2022 Jun Zhang agreed to purchase the property for £16.85 million plus contents. The completion date was subsequently extended and Ms Zhang forfeited a first deposit of £1.685 million after failing to complete in late 2023.

A replacement Sale Agreement was concluded in December 2023 at £16.9 million with a completion date of 22 April 2024 and a fresh deposit of £2,527,500. Ms Zhang again failed to complete and forfeited the second deposit. Regal subsequently marketed the property and sold it to 16 Bishop Limited in September 2024 for £10,157,168.94.

The measure of damages

There was no dispute as to the applicable legal principles. Following the approach of Lloyd LJ in Hooper v Oates [2013] EWCA Civ 91, where a vendor resells following a buyer's default, the actual resale price governs the vendor's loss rather than market value at the date of breach, absent any failure to mitigate.

The burden fell on Ms Zhang to show that Regal had not freely and competently sold the property at arm's length on the open market. She argued it had been sold below its true value, supported by expert evidence valuing it at £14.75 million in September 2024, and contended that Regal's marketing had been too brief and unduly influenced by a side arrangement with Gabriel Gherscovic, the controller of the ultimate buyer.

Marketing and the Gherscovic loan

Judge Hacon found the property had been marketed for a cumulative period of seven to eight months through successive specialist agents including Sotheby's International and DDRE Global, exceeding the average market period for comparable properties. The high-end residential market was falling during this period, making delay more likely to reduce than improve the achieved price.

On the Gherscovic point, Regal's director had simultaneously negotiated a £3 million loan arrangement through a Gherscovic-controlled company for a separate development project, concluded on the same day as the property sale. The judge found it likely that both deals were in Mr Eden's mind, but concluded that the prospect of the loan was not of sufficient value to have materially influenced the negotiated sale price.

The judge also offered notable guidance on expert valuation methodology. Both experts' credibility had been compromised by their knowledge of the parties' pleaded positions before finalising their reports. A sequential approach, in which experts first provide valuations independently of each side's case and subsequently comment on the actual resale price, would have been materially more useful to the court. Both counsel agreed.

Regal's principal damages claim succeeded: the difference of approximately £6.74 million between the Sale Agreement price and the resale price, reduced by the forfeited deposit of £2,527,500 and a £1 million stamp duty contribution under the Sale Agreement. Interest on a Deutsche Bank loan secured against the property was also recoverable, calculated on a reduced principal reflecting Regal's obligation to apply the forfeited deposits to reduce the borrowing.

Richard Clarke and Poppy Kemp (instructed by Winckworth Sherwood LLP) for the Claimant. Martin Dray (instructed by Acuity Law Limited) for the Defendant.