Hallam Land Management Ltd v UK Coal Mining Ltd and another
Series: Estates Gazette ; [2002] 35 EG 96-104(8) | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) ; [2002] EWCA Civ 982Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Summary: CA, 30 May 2002. Appellant (H) had the benefit of an option to buy a 45 acre site from the respondent landowners (U) that was exercisable following application for the development of the property. H was granted planning permission for a development on 2.5 acres of land for company HQ with landscaping. H exercised the option to purchase the site and U contended the option was not validly exercised. The judge held that the option had not been validly exercised because H had not submitted a planning application for the development of the whole of the property, as required in the terms of the option agreement. H appealed. "Held": appeal dismissed on the grounds that the property was defined as the 45 acre site and H's application was inconsistent with that definition.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS66101 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 120329-1001 |
CA, 30 May 2002. Appellant (H) had the benefit of an option to buy a 45 acre site from the respondent landowners (U) that was exercisable following application for the development of the property. H was granted planning permission for a development on 2.5 acres of land for company HQ with landscaping. H exercised the option to purchase the site and U contended the option was not validly exercised. The judge held that the option had not been validly exercised because H had not submitted a planning application for the development of the whole of the property, as required in the terms of the option agreement. H appealed. "Held": appeal dismissed on the grounds that the property was defined as the 45 acre site and H's application was inconsistent with that definition.