[2007] EWCA Civ 622, 27 June 2007. B appealed against a decision that it was prevented by collateral contract from making charges for claims against the respondent D. D had negotiated the letting of premises from B's predecessor. D had terminated the contract with the predecessor upon agreement that the predecessor would not serve a schedule of dilapidations. B submitted that the judge's decision went further than previous cases in deciding the strictness of the test for a collateral contract, and that documentary evidence showed that the parties intended the issue to be dealt with by other means. D submitted that a collateral contract was implicit in the conclusion of the main contract. "Held": D had no defence to the claim based on collateral contract. Although well-established, collateral contracts with relation to land leases needed to be approached with caution, if not suspicion. If the binding promise was one in contract of disposition or sale, it would be unenforceable unless contained in written contract.