Isle of Man based developer Harbour Castle has won a Court of Appeal battle to revive its £50m-plus damages claim against a Barratt Homes subsidiary over a failed development project in Princes Risborough.
Harbour Castle Ltd successfully appealed against Judge Seymour’s decision last July to bring a halt to its action against David Wilson Homes Ltd because Harbour Castle had failed to prepare satisfactory particulars of claim in the case.
The judge had, shortly before the case was due to trial last year, required Harbour Castle to issue fresh particulars of claim, but took the view that the replacement particulars were still not adequate. He ruled that, as a result, the proceedings – in which Harbour Castle alleged that its losses were “in excess of £50m” – stood dismissed.
Now Hallett J has overturned that decision, opening the way for the proceedings to continue.
Harbour Castle argued that its particulars disclosed a reasonable cause of action against David Wilson – a claim for damages for breach of contract based on a call option agreement made on 26 October 2004 in respect of almost 68 acres of land it owns west of Princes Risborough town centre.
It says that the agreement made David Wilson solely responsible for preparing and submitting a planning application for housing development of the site, but that David Wilson failed to comply with its contractual obligations. Planning permission for the development was refused in 2006 and an appeal was dismissed in March 2007, but Harbour castle says that David Wilson failed to take reasonable steps to obtain permission in good time.
As a result, it says that David Wilson failed to maximise the open market value of the land, and it suffered substantial losses likely to exceed £50m. In addition, Harbour Castle seeks to recover more than £300,000 in planning costs it expended.
David Wilson – which is defending the proceedings – had argued that Harbour Castle’s particulars of claim failed to comply with the bare minimum requirement of the civil procedure rules, and that the judge’s decision should stand.
