The Central London County Court recently dealt with a case where a woman who purchased a luxury apartment alleged that the developers failed to deliver the promised specifications. The Court is examining whether the apartment significantly deviated from the agreed layout and if the buyer is entitled to damages. One key aspect under consideration is whether the marketing materials and agreements sufficiently defined the apartment’s features.
The dispute involves Mi Suk Park, a London-based accountant, who purchased a two-bedroom apartment in the Aykon London One tower, a 50-storey residential project developed in collaboration with the fashion house Versace. The property was valued at approximately ₹16.6 crore (£1.5 million), for which Park made an initial deposit of ₹4.2 crore (£381,000). The apartment was intended to be her primary residence until retirement. Originally scheduled for completion in 2020, delays postponed the handover to 2022. Upon taking possession, Park discovered that one bedroom was smaller than anticipated, and one of the bathrooms lacked a bathtub—a feature she believed was included in the design based on marketing materials and prior discussions.
Park, represented by counsel Nazar Mohammad, contended that the apartment significantly differed from what was promised. She asserted that the unit was "materially and manifestly different" from the layout she was shown when entering into the agreement. As a result, she initiated legal proceedings, seeking ₹7.7 crore (£700,000) in damages for the alleged misrepresentation and deviation from the contract.
The developers, a Jersey-based entity owned by a Dubai parent company, refuted Park’s claims and instead argued that she failed to fulfill her contractual obligations. Counsel for the developers, Rupert Cohen, contended that the sales brochure provided only illustrative examples of the apartment layouts and included disclaimers indicating that the images were "typical layouts." Furthermore, the developers alleged that Park breached the contract by refusing to complete the purchase, despite receiving formal notices to do so. According to the developers, Park purported to rescind the contract in October 2022, following which she was served a notice to complete in November 2022. After her failure to comply, a termination notice was issued in January 2023.
The Court took note of the argument that the promotional materials may not have constituted a binding commitment to specific features and that variations in design are common in off-plan property sales. The Court also considered whether the contract allowed for such deviations and whether the differences materially impacted the overall value and usability of the apartment.
The case remains ongoing, with the Court yet to decide on the claims of misrepresentation and contractual breach. The judgment will likely address whether the deviations amounted to a contractual violation warranting damages or whether the disclaimers in the marketing materials protect the developers from liability.
Picture Source :
