Resources

The judgment in RBH Building Contractors Ltd v Ashley James & Anor has now been released. This case, involving James Frampton, raised several interesting points concerning residential occupier exception, payless notices and adjudicator's fees:1) The Defendants successfully resisted summary judgment by relying on the residential occupier exception under section 106. Although there was a developer’s loan stating that the property would not be occupied and was for business purposes, the Court held that the defence raised issues that needed to be determined at trial. See [19] to [45].2) Contrary to the adjudicator’s decision, the Court found the Defendants’ payless notice to be valid. A list of disputed bullet points was present, only some of which were valued in the notice itself. See [46] to [56].3) The Court confirmed that if the adjudicator’s decision had been enforced, it would not have had jurisdiction to revisit the adjudicator's decision on his fees, despite concluding on the Part 8 that the adjudicator was wrong. See [57] to [77]. The full judgment can be accessed here.

This appeal arose from a long-term waste management contract entered into between Buckinghamshire Council (“the Council”) and FCC Buckinghamshire Limited (“FCCB”). Under the contract, FCCB was required to build a waste-to-energy facility at Lower Greatmoor Farm, Buckinghamshire (“Greatmoor”). Thereafter, FCCB was required to dispose of the Council’s waste at Greatmoor and also allowed to use excess capacity at Greatmoor to handle waste from third parties.  Where it obtained income from third parties that was “associated with the Project” (defined under the contract as “Third Party Income”), FCCB was required to share a portion of that income with the Council, subject to its right to deduct costs that were “directly incurred” in generating the income and that met the requirements of three further contractual provisos. In an earlier set of proceedings ([2021] EWHC 2867 (TCC)), the Council established that Third Party Income included income received by FCC affiliates from the North London Waste Authority and Hertfordshire County Council for handling waste that was disposed of at Greatmoor. O’Farrell J held that the contractual definition of Third Party Income was “capable of…

Lord Banner KC appeared on behalf of the Generator Group of Companies in a successful planning appeal concerning a major mixed-use development at Horsham Golf Club, following a six-day inquiry in June.The Planning Inspectorate's Inspector Dominic Young allowed the appeal against Horsham District Council’s refusal, granting permission for a Sports and Leisure Hub at Horsham Golf Club, including up to 800 dwellings (280 of which would be affordable housing), a permanent home for Horsham Hockey Club, a new facility for the charity Warren Clark Golfing Dreams, a new home for The Golf College, a remodelled golf course and modern coaching academy, a convenience store and co-working space.The Inspector concluded that the objections, including landscape and transport concerns, were clearly outweighed by the ten benefits summarised (along with the weightings he gave them) at paragraph 62 of the decision.Charles was instructed by David Churchill and Amon Yiu of Carter Jonas, calling expert evidence from David on planning, from Richard Fox on landscape, and from Clive Burbridge (Iceni Projects) on highways and transport.The full Appeal Decision can be accessed here.