London Borough of Waltham Forest v Oakmesh Ltd & Anor [2009] EWHC 1688 (Ch) (10 July 2009)

London Borough of Waltham Forest v Oakmesh Ltd & Anor [2009] EWHC 1688 (Ch) (10 July 2009)

The Second Defendant is estopped from denying the validity of the section 106 Agreement due to its prior representations and conduct; its application to amend the Defence is an abuse of process and is refused. The Claimant is entitled to a mandatory injunction compelling performance of the planning obligation, as the Agreement is enforceable and no discretionary or practical bar to relief exists.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1688 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Waltham Forest; First Defendant: Oakmesh Limited; Second Defendant: Family Mosaic Housing
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Summary Judgment Application and Application to Amend Defence
Outcome
Application to amend Defence refused; summary judgment granted for Claimant; mandatory injunction to be ordered.
Legal Topics
Section 106 Agreements, Planning Obligations, Injunctions, Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Rectification, Mandatory Orders
Planning Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Section 106 Agreements Planning Obligations Injunctions Estoppel Abuse of Process +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Waltham Forest

Claimant

Oakmesh Limited

First Defendant

Family Mosaic Housing

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Summary Judgment Application and Application to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning obligation in the 1996 Agreement is enforceable against the Defendants under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendant (Family) should be permitted to amend its Defence to argue the Agreement is not a valid section 106 agreement
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is precluded from enforcement due to its own interest in the land (the 'adoption issue')

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Defendant is estopped from denying the validity of the section 106 Agreement due to its prior representations and conduct; its application to amend the Defence is an abuse of process and is refused. The Claimant is entitled to a mandatory injunction compelling performance of the planning obligation, as the Agreement is enforceable and no discretionary or practical bar to relief exists.

Court Disposition

Application to amend Defence refused; summary judgment granted for Claimant; mandatory injunction to be ordered.

Orders

  • Second Defendant's application to amend Defence is refused as an abuse of process and due to estoppel.
  • Mandatory injunction to compel performance of the obligation to construct the bridge link is granted.