000			01963cab a2200205 4500
001			L130063
008			050620n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u130063
041			_aeng
245			_aPatel and others v Brent London Borough Council (No 2)
260			_c2005
520			_a[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.
590			_aIKA210605
650			_aPATEL AND OTHERS V BRENT LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL
650			_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S106
690			_aPlanning and development _96259
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/644.html _zView the 2005 decision free of charge at www.bailii.org...
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2004/763.html _zView the 2004 decision free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c75430 _d75430