Image from Google Jackets

JS Bloor Ltd v Pavillion Developments Ltd [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2008] EWHC 724 (TCC), 14 March 2008. Despite a variety of unknown quantities, a developer could not claim expenses from an individual whose land it had accidentally improved. Claimant (B), a property developer, sold land to other developers including respondent (P). An agreement existed whereby B would build and maintain an access road and P would build another access road at a later date. B ended up mistakenly building both roads and tried to claim for the expense of the incontrovertible benefits that they claim were afforded to P as a result of this error. P maintained that English law does not hold a developer responsible for mistaken improvements by another party to their land. Case dismissed: B could not reclaim costs from P as it enjoyed non-pecuniary improvements to access and other benefits as a result of creating the road. The judge also found that P had suffered disadvantages as a result of the road creation, including the inability to choose the specification for the section of road that they had agreed to build. An additional charge laid by B that P had dumped spoil on its land was also rejected by the judge, as there was evidence to the contrary.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 144935-1001

[2008] EWHC 724 (TCC), 14 March 2008. Despite a variety of unknown quantities, a developer could not claim expenses from an individual whose land it had accidentally improved. Claimant (B), a property developer, sold land to other developers including respondent (P). An agreement existed whereby B would build and maintain an access road and P would build another access road at a later date. B ended up mistakenly building both roads and tried to claim for the expense of the incontrovertible benefits that they claim were afforded to P as a result of this error. P maintained that English law does not hold a developer responsible for mistaken improvements by another party to their land. Case dismissed: B could not reclaim costs from P as it enjoyed non-pecuniary improvements to access and other benefits as a result of creating the road. The judge also found that P had suffered disadvantages as a result of the road creation, including the inability to choose the specification for the section of road that they had agreed to build. An additional charge laid by B that P had dumped spoil on its land was also rejected by the judge, as there was evidence to the contrary.