Malkinson & Ors v Secured Orchard Investments Ltd & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1509 (13 December 2005)

Malkinson & Ors v Secured Orchard Investments Ltd & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1509 (13 December 2005)

The option under the land option agreement was not exercisable after 31 December 2003 because the conditions for extension under clause 8.2 did not exist at that date. The legal charge did not continue as security for planning expenses under clause 5.3 because a formal release of the option was required, which did not occur. The court refused to rewrite the parties' bargain or strain the contractual language to achieve a different commercial result.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1509
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Patrick Malkinson; Claimant/respondent: Andrew Patrick Malkinson; Claimant/respondent: Stephen James Malkinson; Defendant/appellant: Secured Orchard Investments Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Orchard (Developments) Holdings PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Respondents' Notice dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Option Agreements, Legal Charges and Security, Planning Permission and Development Obligations
Contract Law Property Law Equity Interpretation of Option Agreements Legal Charges and Security Planning Permission and Development Obligations

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Malkinson

Claimant/respondent

Andrew Patrick Malkinson

Claimant/respondent

Stephen James Malkinson

Claimant/respondent

Secured Orchard Investments Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Orchard (Developments) Holdings PLC

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the land option agreement remained exercisable after 31 December 2003 under clause 8.2
  2. 2 Whether the legal charge remained as security for a contingent liability under clause 5.3 for planning expenses

Ratio Decidendi

The option under the land option agreement was not exercisable after 31 December 2003 because the conditions for extension under clause 8.2 did not exist at that date. The legal charge did not continue as security for planning expenses under clause 5.3 because a formal release of the option was required, which did not occur. The court refused to rewrite the parties' bargain or strain the contractual language to achieve a different commercial result.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Respondents' Notice dismissed

Orders

  • The appeals of Secured Orchard Investments Ltd and Orchard (Developments) Holdings PLC are dismissed.
  • The Respondents' Notice is dismissed.