Co Mayo Estates Ltd v Hidden Gem Ltd [2024] EWHC 401 (KB)

The claimant, a company registered in Ireland, sold three plots of land (“the plots”) at an online auction hosted by Barnard Marcus Auctions. The winner of the bid was the defendant, a family company registered in England and Wales. Following the auction, the defendant sought formal pre-application planning advice, learning that temporary structures like shepherd’s huts or caravans were not permitted on the plots. The defendant completed the purchase of one plot but only paid a portion of the deposit required for the other two plots.

The claimant filed a claim against the defendant to recover the unpaid balance of certain deposits. In response, the defendant filed a defence and counterclaim, seeking to rescind the contract based on alleged misrepresentation in the sale particulars, which were included in the ‘auction pack’ for the sale. They also sought to reclaim the sums already paid and incurred for professional advice.

The judge ruled in favour of the claimant, dismissing the counterclaim. The judge determined that there was no misrepresentation as alleged. 

  The court found:

1. The defendant argued that the claimant had better access to information from the local planning authority, but the judge found no grounds to challenge this.
2. It was found that the claimant did not possess any relevant knowledge or sources about the planning status of the plots that were unavailable to the defendant.
3. There was no evidence to suggest that any opinions were not honestly held, which was detrimental to the defendant’s argument regarding any representations of opinion.
4. Considering the entirety of the sale particulars, the defendant’s case regarding any factual representations was unsuccessful.
5. Although CGI images may have spurred unwarranted speculation, they were clearly labelled as “STPP” (subject to planning permission), indicating their purpose for pre-application planning advice rather than for an actual planning application. Thus, the judge found any implied representation was consistent with the claimant’s true state of mind.
6. Even if an implied representation existed, it would have been too vague to hold any legal consequences.

Accordingly, the defendants appeal against the judgement made in favour of the claimant regarding the contractual dispute was dismissed by the Kings Bench Division.

If you have any queries or require support with contractual matters, please feel free to contact Lumine Solicitors on 020 3950 2246 or Contact Us HERE