![[2024] EWHC 3625 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png){kind=logo}
he valued the incorrect size of the development authorised by the Planning Permission
he valued the incorrect size of the development authorised by the Planning Permission;
he made no allowance in his valuation for the effect of the Planning Permission which required Orchard House to build affordable housing;
accordingly, his build cost figure was overstated and his Gross Development Valuation was incorrect;
he correctly estimated build costs by reference to the Building Costs Information Service (BCIS), but he allowed in his valuation those costs explicitly excluded by BCIS;
- Heading
- The Parties
- The Background Facts
- The Master Agreement
- By Clause 2.5, the Defendants agreed to grant Mr Lomax an option to purchase plot F ( Option F )
- Option Agreement C
- the “Option Period” is defined as “five years from [19 January 2017]”
- by Clause 8.2, “the Deposit must be paid by direct credit”
- the Deposit is defined as “10% of the Purchase Price (exclusive of VAT)”
- Option Agreement F
- by Clause 1.1 (definitions)
- Subsequent events in relation to Plots C and F
- informed the Defendants that he had been unaware that a main water pipeline ( the Severn Trent Pipeline ) ran directly across the land which the Claimants had acquired and proposed to buy and suggeste
- proposed a Purchase Price of £250,000 for the remainder of Plot C proposed that the Defendants agreed to remove the restrictive covenant on Plot F prohibiting the construction of additional buildings on that land, other than the redevelopment of the
- “What was the total amount on the table H” “£250K for the land [Plot C] £325K for the house [Plot F]…The deal is take it or leave it…”
- The date of the Defendants’ move to the New Farmhouse
- a holiday request form, indicating that she was to be away from work on 28 and 29 June 2018 a removal van invoice/receipt dated 28 June 2018 referring to a “part move, total cost £80. Paid cash”
- a Certificate of Practical Completion dated 25 June 2018
- The issues to be determined in relation to Plot C
- whether Orchard House was ready and able to tender any deposit on 6 January 2021
- what loss, if any, has been suffered by Orchard House by reason of any breach by the Defendants The Parties’ broad positions on Plot C
- Issues to be determined in relation to Plot F
- the date on which the Defendants moved into their new property
- whether the Defendants are in breach of Option Agreement F by failing to transfer Plot F to Mr Lomax
- The Parties’ broad positions on Plot F
- Procedure
- The Part 8 Claim
- he valued the incorrect size of the development authorised by the Planning Permission
- he failed to allow for other build costs; and
- Mr Wilson’s calculation of Gross Development Value and build costs is, therefore, overstated
- Approach to the witnesses’ evidence
- the demeanour of the witness; and the inherent probability of the witness’s account being true
- The witnesses
- The minutes of the meetings taken by Mrs Davies
- Discussion and Analysis
- The key factual issues to be determined
- Was there a certain and binding oral agreement between Orchard House and the Defendants reached between September 2018 and March 2019 as to the Purchase Price for Plot C (less Plot G)?
- Was there a further binding oral agreement (or a certain binding variation to any prior agreement) reached between Orchard House and the Defendants in or around July 2020 as to the Purchase price for
- What was the date on which the Defendants moved into the New Farmhouse?
- Plot C – Issues for determination
- Issue 2: Was there a further certain and binding oral agreement (or a certain and binding variation to any prior agreement) between Orchard House and the Defendants in or around July 2020 as to the Pu
- Issue 3: Whether waiver by estoppel arose up to July 2020 upon which reliance was placed by Orchard House, so that the Defendants are estopped from denying that a Purchase Price of £250,000 was agreed
- Issue 4: Whether the purported exercise of the Option C on 6 January 2021 was required to be conditional upon the payment of a deposit; and, if it was so, whether the Defendants waived compliance with
- The Law
- commercial common sense; but disregarding subjective evidence of any party’s intentions
- Issue 5: Whether Orchard House was ready and able to tender any deposit on 6 January 2021
- Issue 6: Whether the Defendants validly terminated Option C on 21 October 2021 for the reasons set out in their solicitors’ letter of the same date
- Issue 7: Whether the second purported exercise of the option for Plot C on 17 January 2022 was valid
- Issue 8: Whether the Defendants are in breach of Option C by failing to transfer Plot C to Orchard House
- Issue 9: what loss, if any, has been suffered by Orchard House by reason of any breach by the Defendants
- The Part 8 Claim
- Option F – Issues for determination
- The parties’ respective positions
- Analysis and decision
- Issue 2: the date on which the Defendants moved into the New Farmhouse
- Conclusions