The plaintiff, a shareholder in a residential development company, brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation against 6 lots in a development project.
The plaintiff claimed an oral agreement entitled it to 25% of the lots in the project, and sought specific performance.
The court found that the plaintiff's partial performance of the oral agreement was sufficient to overcome the requirement for a written contract under the Statute of Frauds.
Applying the criteria for granting a certificate of pending litigation, the court concluded that the plaintiff had a viable claim, damages would be difficult to quantify, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the certificate to protect the plaintiff's interest in the specific lots.
