Patel and others v Brent London Borough Council (No 2)
Patel and others v Brent London Borough Council (No 2)
- 2005
[2005] EWCA Civ 644, 25 May 2005. Considers whether a deposit paid to a local authority pursuant to an agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s106 should be returned in full because the authority had repudiated the agreement through its delay in carrying out works and none or only part of the works that were carried out should have been paid for out of the deposit. Appeal by charitable trustees (P) against the decision ([2004] EWHC 763 (Ch), (2004) 17 EG 129 (CS)) that they were not entitled to the full return of a highways improvement payment deposited with defendant (B) under a s106 agreement. Held: appeal allowed. The holding of a deposit by the local authority for specified purposes created a form of trust. P's obligation, extant at all times, was not merely to deposit the money but to permit B to use it for trust purposes. S106 A(1) of the Act precluded P from seeking to discharge that obligation under their claim that B had repudiated the agreement. The earlier judgment had been wrong to conclude that all the work done was work that B was entitled to pay for out of P's deposit and an inquiry should be held into the extent of work to be paid for from the deposit.
PATEL AND OTHERS V BRENT LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S106
[2005] EWCA Civ 644, 25 May 2005. Considers whether a deposit paid to a local authority pursuant to an agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s106 should be returned in full because the authority had repudiated the agreement through its delay in carrying out works and none or only part of the works that were carried out should have been paid for out of the deposit. Appeal by charitable trustees (P) against the decision ([2004] EWHC 763 (Ch), (2004) 17 EG 129 (CS)) that they were not entitled to the full return of a highways improvement payment deposited with defendant (B) under a s106 agreement. Held: appeal allowed. The holding of a deposit by the local authority for specified purposes created a form of trust. P's obligation, extant at all times, was not merely to deposit the money but to permit B to use it for trust purposes. S106 A(1) of the Act precluded P from seeking to discharge that obligation under their claim that B had repudiated the agreement. The earlier judgment had been wrong to conclude that all the work done was work that B was entitled to pay for out of P's deposit and an inquiry should be held into the extent of work to be paid for from the deposit.
PATEL AND OTHERS V BRENT LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S106