000			03408cad a22005295a 4500
001			L144655
008			080804e20080730xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u144655
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aYeoman's Row Management Ltd v Cobbe _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_a[2008] UKHL 55, 30 July 2008. Where a property developer had reached an oral agreement in principle with a property owner to buy their property and expend time and expense in obtaining planning permission pursuant to the agreement but the owner subsequently refused to enter into a binding contract, the remedy could not be based on estoppel or constructive trust. Developer was entitled to quantum meruit payment for his services. Appellant company (Y) appealled against a developer (C) establishing propriety estoppel against it and being entitled to a lien over a property to secure his interest. Y had been formed to purchase a block of flats with the potential for development. Y and C then entered into a contract where Y would sell the property to C for £12 million pounds, C would then use his own means to obtain planning permission, develop the site and then pay 50% of any profit made over £24 million to Y. Y then sought to re-negotiate the agreement and C applied for estoppel. Held: The remedy due to C could not be construed as estoppel or a constructive trust and it fell to the court to determine how his claim might best be remedied. Property was never a joint venture and could not be treated as such. Y was unjustly enriched as it obtained the benefits of planning permission without paying for it and the remedy of quantum meruit had to be paid to C in light of the service it had provided to Y (the obtaining of planning permission).
590			_aKA NTK
650	2	4	_aKILCARNE HOLDINGS LTD V TARGETFOLLOW (BIRMINGHAM) LTD
650	2	4	_aLAIRD V BIRKENHEAD RAILWAY CO
650	2	4	_aMUSCHINSKI V DODDS
650	2	4	_aLONDON & REGIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD V TBI PLC
650	2	4	_aTAYLORS FASHIONS LTD V LIVERPOOL VICTORIA TRUSTEES CO LTD
650	2	4	_aTIME PRODUCTS LIMITED V COMBINED ENGLISH STORES
650	2	4	_aPRIDEAN LTD V FOREST TAVERNS LTD AND OTHERS
650	2	4	_aRAMSDEN V DYSON
650	2	4	_aR (REPROTECH (PEBSHAM) LTD) V EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL
650	2	4	_aROCHDALE CANAL COMPANY V KING
650	2	4	_aPLIMMER V MAYOR OF WELLINGTON
650	2	4	_aPOWELL V THOMAS
650	2	4	_aHOLIDAY INNS INC V BROADHEAD
650	2	4	_aINWARDS V BAKER
650	2	4	_aJENNINGS V RICE AND OTHERS
650	2	4	_aBRITISH STEEL CORPORATION V CLEVELAND BRIDGE AND ENGINEERING CO LTD
650	2	4	_aCRABB V ARUN DC
650	2	4	_aDANN V SPURRIER
650	2	4	_aYEOMANS ROW MANAGEMENT LTD V COBBE
650	2	4	_aATTORNEY-GENERAL OF HONG KONG V HUMPHREYS ESTATE (QUEENS GARDENS) LTD
650	2	4	_aBANNER HOMES GROUP PLC V LUFF DEVELOPMENTS LTD
650	2	4	_aPALLANT V MORGAN
650	2	4	_aPASCOE V TURNER
650	2	4	_aWALTON STORES (INTERSTATE) LTD V MAHER
650	2	4	_aWILMOTT V BARBER
650	2	4	_aWINDELER V WHITEHALL
650	2	4	_aDILLWYN V LLEWELYN
650	2	4	_aGILLETT V HOLT
650	2	4	_aGRUNDY V OTTEY
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2008/55.html _zView the item free of charge online at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c80533 _d80533