Villa Dispute: Limitation Defence Prevails

High Court Strikes Out Claims in Villa Ownership Dispute

The High Court, presided over by His Honour Judge Jarman KC, has delivered a significant ruling in the case of Andrew Edward McCarthy versus Graham Brian Proctor and William Allan Jones. The case, heard in the Chancery Division of the Business and Property Courts in Wales, revolved around complex property ownership and debt claims concerning a villa in Mallorca.

The dispute originated from a previous judgment in August 2022, where Mr McCarthy was found liable to pay Mr Jones £1,025,000 for breaching an agreement to sell villa rights. Mr McCarthy's defence that Mr Jones had transferred rights to Mr Proctor, who then sold them back to Mr McCarthy, was rejected. Mr Proctor, not a party to those proceedings, disagreed with the findings.

In July 2024, Mr Proctor initiated a Part 20 claim against Mr Jones, asserting debt and restitution claims. Mr Jones responded by applying to strike out these claims, citing the Limitation Act 1980. The court, under CPR 3.4(2), has the authority to strike out a statement of case if it lacks reasonable grounds or is an abuse of process.

Mr Proctor's claims were based on an alleged 2011 oral agreement involving a Dubai apartment and the Mallorca villa. He claimed Mr Jones owed him over £1 million, a debt that increased due to unpaid mortgage repayments. Mr Proctor argued he sold the villa to Mr McCarthy to offset this debt.

Mr Jones contended that Mr Proctor's claims were time-barred, as the limitation period for the debt and restitution claims had expired. The court agreed, finding no realistic prospect of Mr Proctor succeeding on these claims. The court noted that any acknowledgment or part payment by Mr Jones was insufficient to extend the limitation period.

The court also addressed Mr Proctor's argument that his claims were governed by Dubai law, which has a more lenient limitation regime. However, the court determined that the agreement was more closely connected to Spain, given the villa's location and the nature of the obligations involved.

Ultimately, the court ruled that Mr Proctor's claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and it was fair and just to strike them out. This decision underscores the importance of understanding and adhering to limitation periods in property and debt disputes.

Learn More

For more information on shareholder law, see BeCivil's guide to Shareholder Law.

Copyright & permissions