Mactaggart & Mickel Ltd v Hunter & Anor [2010] ScotCS CSOH_130 (16 September 2010)

Mactaggart & Mickel Ltd v Hunter & Anor [2010] ScotCS CSOH_130 (16 September 2010)

MML used reasonable endeavours to obtain planning permission for the defined development as required by the missives. The principal planning authority's consistent opposition to the scale of development meant further steps would not have changed the outcome. MML acted reasonably and in good faith in concluding permission would not be granted and was entitled to serve an unsatisfactory planning notice. There was no waiver of contractual rights. MML is entitled to rescind the missives and recover the deposit, subject to valuation evidence.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSOH_130
Parties
Pursuer: Mactaggart & Mickel Homes Limited; Defender: Charles Andrew Moore Hunter; Defender: Sandra Elizabeth Hunter
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Preliminary Proof on Liability
Outcome
judgment for pursuer
Legal Topics
Reasonable Endeavours, Planning Permission, Good Faith, Waiver, Unjustified Enrichment
Contract Law Property Law Reasonable Endeavours Planning Permission Good Faith Waiver Unjustified Enrichment

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mactaggart & Mickel Homes Limited

Pursuer

Charles Andrew Moore Hunter

Defender

Sandra Elizabeth Hunter

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Preliminary Proof on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did MML use reasonable endeavours to obtain planning permission as required by the missives?
  2. 2 Was MML entitled to serve an unsatisfactory planning notice under the contract?
  3. 3 Did MML act reasonably and in good faith when deciding planning permission would not be granted?

Ratio Decidendi

MML used reasonable endeavours to obtain planning permission for the defined development as required by the missives. The principal planning authority's consistent opposition to the scale of development meant further steps would not have changed the outcome. MML acted reasonably and in good faith in concluding permission would not be granted and was entitled to serve an unsatisfactory planning notice. There was no waiver of contractual rights. MML is entitled to rescind the missives and recover the deposit, subject to valuation evidence.

Court Disposition

judgment for pursuer

Orders

  • MML entitled to rescind the missives
  • MML entitled to recover the deposit paid, subject to valuation evidence