Case news: Hughes v Groveholt
Gordon, Warren
Case news: Hughes v Groveholt - 2005 - Property Week 70(31) 5 August 2005, 57(1) .
Discusses the case "Hughes v Groveholt Ltd" ([2005] EWCA Civ 897, unreported) where the court had to decide whether the seller of a brownfield site was entitled to additional payments when the value of that land increased. The appellant, Hughes (H), had sold land to Chelverton Properties as part of a redevelopment scheme and had taken out a mortgage on the land to protect his position as he would be paid more if planning consents were given. Chelverton sold the land to the defendant, developers Groveholt (G), subject to H's mortgage but on liquidation, the liquidator disclaimed Chelverton's rights and obligations to H: at the time H was entitled to £3m in extra payments. H claimed the £3m but the court decided that he had lost the right to the money on the grounds that there was no commercial sense in H getting an extra purchase payment that did not reflect the preparatory costs a developer would have to incur.
HUGHES V GROVEHOLT LTD
Case news: Hughes v Groveholt - 2005 - Property Week 70(31) 5 August 2005, 57(1) .
Discusses the case "Hughes v Groveholt Ltd" ([2005] EWCA Civ 897, unreported) where the court had to decide whether the seller of a brownfield site was entitled to additional payments when the value of that land increased. The appellant, Hughes (H), had sold land to Chelverton Properties as part of a redevelopment scheme and had taken out a mortgage on the land to protect his position as he would be paid more if planning consents were given. Chelverton sold the land to the defendant, developers Groveholt (G), subject to H's mortgage but on liquidation, the liquidator disclaimed Chelverton's rights and obligations to H: at the time H was entitled to £3m in extra payments. H claimed the £3m but the court decided that he had lost the right to the money on the grounds that there was no commercial sense in H getting an extra purchase payment that did not reflect the preparatory costs a developer would have to incur.
HUGHES V GROVEHOLT LTD