Ampurius NU Homes Holdings Ltd v Telford Homes (Creekside) Ltd

Ampurius NU Homes Holdings Ltd v Telford Homes (Creekside) Ltd

The defendant was in repudiatory breach of contract by halting works on Blocks A and B, depriving the claimant of the commercial benefit intended; the claimant was entitled to terminate and recover deposits, but not further damages as it would not have recouped wasted expenditure.

Parties
Claimant: Ampurius Nu Homes Holdings Ltd; Defendant: Telford Homes (Creekside) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim for misrepresentation dismissed; claim for repudiatory breach allowed to extent of deposit recovery; damages claim dismissed; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Repudiatory Breach, Misrepresentation, Affirmation, Damages, Commercial Property Development
Contract Law Property Law Repudiatory Breach Misrepresentation Affirmation Damages Commercial Property Development

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ampurius Nu Homes Holdings Ltd

Claimant

Telford Homes (Creekside) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant made fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations regarding funding
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was in repudiatory breach of contract
  3. 3 Whether the claimant affirmed the contract or was estopped from accepting repudiation

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was in repudiatory breach of contract by halting works on Blocks A and B, depriving the claimant of the commercial benefit intended; the claimant was entitled to terminate and recover deposits, but not further damages as it would not have recouped wasted expenditure.

Court Disposition

Claim for misrepresentation dismissed; claim for repudiatory breach allowed to extent of deposit recovery; damages claim dismissed; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Claimant entitled to recover deposit of £421,309.07 plus interest.
  • Claim for damages for wasted expenditure dismissed.