Greenland Holdings Group, the Chinese state-owned real estate developer, has been found liable to pay developer Minerva almost £3.8m in damages in an overage dispute over the site of what was Britain’s oldest brewery.
Minerva sued, blaming Greenland for failing to do what was required to secure a more lucrative planning permission for the historic Ram Brewery site in Wandsworth, where beer was brewed as early as the 16th century and which was the home of Young & Co until 2006.
Minerva snapped up the site when Young & Co sold up in 2006, then sold it to Greenland for £135m in 2013. It claimed that if Greenland had done what was agreed and a better permission had been secured, it would have been entitled to an overage payment worth an additional £200 per sq ft under the sale agreement.
Now Mrs Justice Rose has found in Minerva’s favour in the overage claim, ruling that Greenland was in breach of the agreement by refusing to enter into a revised section 106 agreement with the London Borough of Wandsworth.
Meanwhile, she found there was no failure on Minerva’s part to use reasonable endeavours to minimise an affordable housing contribution payable to Wandsworth under the revised section 106 agreement, as Greenland had claimed.
She said: “Greenland therefore wrongly prevented Minerva from earning the overage payable under paragraph 3.2 of schedule 6 of the sale agreement and is therefore liable to pay Minerva damages in that amount, namely £3,786,400 together with interest.”
The substantial scheme designed and initially pursued by Minerva involves 661 flats spread over 18 buildings, including a 36-storey tower containing 166 of the flats.
Minerva claimed that, under the December 2013 agreement, Minerva had to apply for an enhanced planning permission, increasing the square footage of the tower, and Greenland was required to enter into the necessary section 106 agreement for that consent to be granted.
Minerva claimed it secured a resolution from Wandsworth that the enhanced permission would be granted but Greenland refused to enter into the section 106 agreement.
Greenland had argued it had no obligation to enter into the section 106 agreement because the terms were too onerous.
To send feedback, e-mail jess.harrold@egi.co.uk or tweet @jessharrold or @estatesgazette
