Glenmere Plc v F Stokes & Sons Ltd

The planning conditions attached to the planning permission were not 'Requisite Consents' within the meaning of the PCA, and the approval of Network Rail under the restrictive covenant was not a 'Requisite Consent'. Therefore, the Defendant was not entitled to terminate the PCA for non-fulfilment of these matters.

Parties: Claimant: Glenmere PLC; Defendant: F. Stokes & Sons Limited
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 18 January 2008
Procedural Posture: Civil (contract/property) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome: Claim allowed
Legal Topics: Construction of Contract Terms, Restrictive Covenants, Planning Permission, Termination of Contract

Contract Law Property Law Construction of Contract Terms Restrictive Covenants Planning Permission Termination of Contract

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Glenmere PLC

Claimant

F. Stokes & Sons Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/property) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

1 Whether planning conditions attached to planning permission are 'Requisite Consents' under the Project Coordination Agreement (PCA)
2 Whether the approval of Network Rail under a restrictive covenant is a 'Requisite Consent' under the PCA
3 Whether failure to fulfil planning conditions or obtain Network Rail approval entitled the Defendant to terminate the PCA

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

Declaration granted that the Defendant's purported termination of the PCA was of no effect and the Defendant is bound by the PCA