Ridgewood Properties Group Ltd & Anor v Kilpatrick Stockton Llp & Ors
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HON MR JUSTICE ARNOLD
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Commercial Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves the Claimants' loss of opportunity and wasted expenditure claims related to a series of Airspace Agreements with Texaco. The defendants are alleged to have failed to advise the claimants properly. The court struck out specific claims for abuse of process, determining that the claims amounted to a collateral attack on earlier judgments. Summary judgment was granted for the defendants for parts of the claims, relying on previously established facts showing no real prospect of successfully obtaining planning permissions.
Judgment
MR JUSTICE ARNOLD :
Contents
Topic Paras Introduction 1 Background 2-30 The Airspace Agreements 2-12 The Texaco proceedings 13-26 The present proceedings 27-30 Assessment of damages for professional negligence 31-34 The Defendants’ application to strike out 35- The law 36-43 Application to the present case 44-59 Does paragraph 62(1) involve a collateral attack on Proudman J’s findings? 44-49 Would it be manifestly unfair to the Defendants? 50 Would it bring the administration of justice into disrepute? 51-57 Does the new evidence satisfy the Phosphate Sewage test? 58-59 Conclusion 60 The Defendants’ application for summary judgment 61-88 Principles applicable to summary judgment applications 62-63 The rule in Hollington v Hewthorn 64 Is there a real prospect of success? 65-88 Clerkenwell Road 68-71 Caledonian Road 72-75 Hove 76-78 Blue Star and Forty Avenue 79-80 Dome 81-84 St Katharine’s, Lansdowne and Hendon Way 85-86 KS’s alternative argument 87 Wasted expenditure 88 Conclusions 89 Postscript
Introduction
This is an application by the Defendants to strike out paragraph 62(1) of the Claimants’ Re-Amended Particulars of Claim on the ground that it is an abuse of process because it amounts to a collateral attack upon findings made by Proudman J in three judgments in previous proceedings, alternatively for summary judgment on the ground that the plea has no real prospect of success.
Background
The Airspace Agreements
Between 23 March 2001 and 30 July 2004 the First Claimant (“RPG”) entered into a series of contracts with Texaco Ltd (subsequently known as Chevron Ltd and then as Valero Energy Ltd) (“Texaco”), known as the Airspace Agreements, under which RPG acquired conditional options to purchase a number of sites used by Texaco as petrol filling station shops (or, in one case, RPG entered into a conditional contract to purchase the site). The scheme of the Airspace Agreements was that RPG would apply for planning permission for redevelopment of each site, which would involve the demolition of the existing shop and the construction of a building comprising a shop with flats above. On the grant of satisfactory planning permission, RPG would take a building lease of the site and carry out the development for which permission had been granted. Upon completion of the development, RPG would surrender the building lease and either acquire the freehold or a long lease of the site, subject to Texaco retaining the shop.
This claim concerns the Air