Aspire Luxury Homes (Eversley) Ltd v Hart District Council [2020] EWHC 3529 (QB) (21 December 2020)

Aspire Luxury Homes (Eversley) Ltd v Hart District Council [2020] EWHC 3529 (QB) (21 December 2020)

The claim is not an abuse of process as it concerns the construction of a section 106 agreement, which is a contractual issue suitable for determination in ordinary civil proceedings. The existence of a parallel planning appeal does not render the claim abusive. The claim raises arguable issues of fact and law regarding whether the claimant has discharged its obligations under clause 14, which should be determined at trial, not summarily struck out.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3529
Parties
Claimant: Aspire Luxury Homes (Eversley) Ltd; Defendant: Hart District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Claim (civil, Part 7) / Interlocutory (application to Strike Out Before Trial)
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 106 Agreements, Planning Obligations, Interpretation of Contracts, Abuse of Process, Judicial Review Vs Civil Claim, Affordable Housing
Planning Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Section 106 Agreements Planning Obligations Interpretation of Contracts Abuse of Process Judicial Review Vs Civil Claim +1 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aspire Luxury Homes (Eversley) Ltd

Claimant

Hart District Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out Claim (civil, Part 7) / Interlocutory (application to Strike Out Before Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for a declaration and damages regarding the exhaustion of obligations under a section 106 agreement is an abuse of process and should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether the construction of a section 106 agreement is a matter for judicial review or can be determined in ordinary civil proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the claimant has discharged its obligations under clause 14 of the section 106 agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is not an abuse of process as it concerns the construction of a section 106 agreement, which is a contractual issue suitable for determination in ordinary civil proceedings. The existence of a parallel planning appeal does not render the claim abusive. The claim raises arguable issues of fact and law regarding whether the claimant has discharged its obligations under clause 14, which should be determined at trial, not summarily struck out.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed

Orders

  • The Defendant's application to strike out the claim is dismissed.
  • The case is not transferred to the Planning Court and will proceed as an ordinary civil claim.