Overage – Case review

Burrows Investments v Ward Homes – Damages for ‘hypothetical bargain’

In this case, a developer in breach of an overage agreement has been held liable for damages on a negotiating basis even though no overage was due.

It was not in dispute that no overage would have fallen to be paid as the price did not exceed the development threshold. Burrows could not have claimed damages for the overage, as there would have been no overage payable. It therefore claimed damages of “negotiation damages” – what Ward would have paid to release the restrictions on disposal.

Ward had transferred 5 properties in breach of an express term of the Agreement. Burrows had a legitimate expectation that Ward would not breach the terms of that agreement. The Court held that Burrows was not seeking to extract a ransom from Ward but merely to be compensated for the loss of the opportunity to negotiate a reasonable price for releasing Ward from its obligations. The benefit of the contractual restriction was a potentially valuable piece of property in its own right and Burrows was deprived of the opportunity to exploit it be Ward’s action.

The actual amount of damages to be paid is still to be determined.

Negotiation damages can be claimed for a release from contractual obligations even where there would be no conventional loss from a breach of those obligations. It is likely that the amount or lack of conventional loss would have a bearing on the appropriate value of damages.

Sparks v Biden – Stating the obvious!

A recent High Court ruling emphasises that courts are usually reluctant to allow developers to escape liability to make an overage payment purely on the basis of a technicality.

Biden obtained planning permission for 8 houses, exercised the option to acquire Sparks’ land and built the houses. Instead of selling them, he let out seven on assured shorthold tenancies and moved into the eighth one himself. Biden claimed he was not obliged to sell any of the houses unless and until he decided to do so.  As a result the obligation to pay overage could be delayed indefinitely.

Sparks argued that a term should be implied into the option agreement requiring Biden to market and sell the houses as soon as was reasonably practicable.

As was demonstrated by the Marks & Spencer Plc case (2015), the court will not usually imply terms if a contract does not provide for what is to happen in particular circumstances. There are, however, cases where the Court will imply a term – where it is necessary to give business efficacy to the contract or it is so obvious that it “goes without saying”.

In this case, the court held in favour of Sparks. The clause was necessary as a matter of business efficacy and without it the option agreement lacked practical or commercial coherence and that the clause was so obvious it “went without saying”.

Every case will turn on its own facts. From a landowner’s perspective, it would be best to put the matter beyond doubt and include an express term to cover the possibility that a developer may try to avoid triggering a sales-based overage payment by the simple expedient of not selling the properties.

This case does indicate that the courts are generally reluctant to allow developers to escape liability purely on the basis of a pure technicality.

Very often there is an imbalance between the parties – on the one hand an experienced developer and on the other a retiree hoping to maximise his pension pot. The courts certainly appear unwilling to support developer’s sharp practices.

 

For more advice on Overage contact the commercial property team at Hart Brown who will be delighted to assist.

This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.

Share

Tamzin Mandelli

Partner, Commercial Property

Prior to joining Hart Brown, Tamzin had worked for a local authority, for both regional and national firms, and she had managed her own firm....

Partner, Commercial Property

Tamzin Mandelli

Prior to joining Hart Brown, Tamzin had worked for a local authority, for both regional and national firms, and she had managed her own firm.

Tamzin specialises in all aspects of commercial property including the sale and purchase of shops, offices and restaurants, landlord and tenant matters (from granting the new lease, through to the various licences for works, transfers and so on) and dealing with the eventual termination of a lease. She is also experienced at dealing with development work including option agreements and acquisitions.

Her most memorable case was the lease of some advertising space – for a well known electronics company in Leicester Square!

Head Office

Resolution House
Riverview
Walnut Tree Close
Guildford
Surrey
GU1 4UX

Your Local Office

Guildford - 01483 887766
Cobham - 01932 576789
Cranleigh - 01483 887515
Godalming - 01483 887766
Woking - 01483 887766

Hart Brown Solicitors is the trading name of Hart Brown LLP registered in England and Wales No. OC 425835 whose registered office is Resolution House, Riverview, Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, GU1 4UX and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) No. 658593. Members: N Maud, T Pearce, D Knapp, R Campbell and P Grimwood, Partners: J Crosby, L Harrhy, J Jupp, J Lamont, T Mandelli, V McMurtrie, E Moore, S Osborne, S Powell and G Sanders.

Any reference to a partner in relation to Hart Brown LLP means a member or an employee with the title of Partner of Hart Brown LLP.

© Copyright Hart Brown LLP 2019 - All Rights Reserved. VAT registration no. 211372705