Great Dunmow Estates Ltd v Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd & Anor

Great Dunmow Estates Ltd v Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd & Anor

The Statement of Agreed Facts did not constitute a binding contractual variation of the valuation date because the contract required variations to be in writing and signed, specifically referring to the variation clause, which was not complied with. The court retained jurisdiction to construe the contract and determine the correct valuation date, which was the Challenge Expiry Date under clause 6.2.2.

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
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Expert Determination, Contract Variation, Jurisdiction of Expert, Valuation Date, Estoppel
Contract Law Property Law Expert Determination Contract Variation Jurisdiction of Expert Valuation Date Estoppel

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 8 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

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the expert had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the valuation date under the contract
  2. 2 Whether the Statement of Agreed Facts constituted a binding contractual variation of the valuation date
  3. 3 Whether the court retained jurisdiction to construe the contract and determine the effect of the Statement of Agreed Facts

Ratio Decidendi

The Statement of Agreed Facts did not constitute a binding contractual variation of the valuation date because the contract required variations to be in writing and signed, specifically referring to the variation clause, which was not complied with. The court retained jurisdiction to construe the contract and determine the correct valuation date, which was the Challenge Expiry Date under clause 6.2.2.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Second declaration made by the judge set aside
  • Case remitted to the Chancery Division for further directions regarding estoppel