Court of Appeal dismisses £27.5m claim against David Wilson Homes
The Court of Appeal has dismissed a long-running case brought against housebuilder David Wilson Homes (DWH).
Developer Phillip Jeans, through his company Harbour Castle Ltd (HCL), has been suing DWH for as much as £27.5m, claiming that the builder breached an agreement to “use all reasonable endeavours” to obtain planning permission on land owned by HCL at Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire.
HCL gave DWH an option to buy the land for £27.5m upon obtaining permission, and planned to sell it to another buyer if DWH didn’t exercise the option.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed a long-running case brought against housebuilder David Wilson Homes (DWH).
Developer Phillip Jeans, through his company Harbour Castle Ltd (HCL), has been suing DWH for as much as £27.5m, claiming that the builder breached an agreement to “use all reasonable endeavours” to obtain planning permission on land owned by HCL at Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire.
HCL gave DWH an option to buy the land for £27.5m upon obtaining permission, and planned to sell it to another buyer if DWH didn’t exercise the option.
After planning permission didn’t materialise, HCL sued DWH for breach of contract in a lawsuit filed in 2009. HCL was ordered by the court to pay security for DWH’s costs, amounting to £1.3m, in a series of instalments.
However, HCL didn’t pay the first instalment of £201,000 and in December 2012 the case was struck out.
In December 2016, HCL sued DWH again making the same allegations — but this time claiming consequential losses of more than £186m. That case was dismissed as an abuse of process last year, as it was an attempt to revive an already-dismissed claim.
HCL appealed and the case was heard earlier this month. Giving judgment today, Lord Justice David Richards, one of the judges who heard the case, again rejected HCL’s arguments.
In his judgment he said that the earlier judge was entitled to find that Jeans, as the “directing mind” of HCL, had access to the funds needed to provide security for the first claim, but chose not to do so.
“It was a deliberate decision by HCL not to comply with the peremptory order for security,” he said. “In my judgment, is was in those circumstances a clear abuse to commence new proceedings making the same claim.
“For the reasons given in this judgment I would dismiss the appeal.”
The judges refused permission to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
Harbour Castle Ltd v David Wilson Homes Ltd
Court of Appeal (Longmore LJ, David Richards LJ, Legatt LJ) 27 March 2017