Great Dunmow Estates Ltd v Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1683 (17 October 2019)

Great Dunmow Estates Ltd v Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1683 (17 October 2019)

The Statement of Agreed Facts did not comply with the contract's formal requirements for variation and was not contractually binding as to the valuation date. The expert (valuer) did not have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the valuation date, as this was a question of law for the court. The correct valuation date under clause 6.2 of the contract is the Challenge Expiry Date, not the date of the expert's determination.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Civ 1683
Parties
Claimant/first Respondent: Great Dunmow Estates Limited; Defendant/appellant: Crest Nicholson Operations Limited; Defendant/appellant: Crest Nicholson PLC; Defendant/second Respondent: Stephen Downham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Expert Determination, Contract Variation, Jurisdiction of Expert Vs Court, Valuation Date in Property Contracts
Contract Law Property Law Expert Determination Contract Variation Jurisdiction of Expert Vs Court Valuation Date in Property Contracts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Great Dunmow Estates Limited

Claimant/first Respondent

Crest Nicholson Operations Limited

Defendant/appellant

Crest Nicholson PLC

Defendant/appellant

Stephen Downham

Defendant/second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Statement of Agreed Facts between valuers contractually bound the parties as to the valuation date
  2. 2 Whether the expert (valuer) had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the valuation date under the contract
  3. 3 Proper construction of clause 6.2 of the contract regarding the valuation date

Ratio Decidendi

The Statement of Agreed Facts did not comply with the contract's formal requirements for variation and was not contractually binding as to the valuation date. The expert (valuer) did not have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the valuation date, as this was a question of law for the court. The correct valuation date under clause 6.2 of the contract is the Challenge Expiry Date, not the date of the expert's determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration that the Statement of Agreed Facts is not contractually binding as to the valuation date is set aside
  • Case remitted to the Chancery Division for further directions if GDEL wishes to pursue an estoppel argument