Halsion Limited v St Thomas Street Development Limited
[2023] EWHC 2045 (TCC)
Tandem Properties Ltd v Sheffield City Council
13 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1926 (Ch)
High Court
A property company sued a city council over a failed redevelopment project. The court threw out some of the claims but said the rest could go to a full trial because the property company had a chance of winning. The main issue was whether the council hid important information and whether the claims were made on time.
Key Facts
- •Tandem Properties Limited (Tandem) sued Sheffield City Council (SCC) for misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, Article 1 Protocol 1 (A1P1) violation, and private/public nuisance.
- •The dispute arose from a 2007 agreement where Tandem withdrew its opposition to a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) for its property in exchange for certain conditions regarding a planned retail development (NRQ).
- •The NRQ ultimately failed to materialize in its original form, leading to Tandem's claim that it suffered significant losses due to SCC's actions.
- •SCC applied for strike out and/or summary judgment of most of Tandem's claims, primarily on limitation grounds.
Legal Principles
Strike out - CPR r.3.4(2)(a): A claim will be struck out if it is not brought on any reasonable ground.
CPR r.3.4(2)(a)
Summary judgment - CPR r.24.2: Summary judgment may be granted if the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding.
CPR r.24.2
Limitation for misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967: Six-year limitation period, accruing when loss or damage is suffered.
Misrepresentation Act 1967, s.2 or s.9 of the Limitation Act 1980
Limitation for HRA claims: One-year limitation period, with potential equitable extension under s.7(5)(b).
Human Rights Act 1998, s.7(5)
Limitation for nuisance claims: Six-year limitation period.
Limitation Act 1980, s.2
Postponement of limitation under s.32 Limitation Act 1980: Applies in cases of fraud, concealment, or mistake; the limitation period doesn't start until discovery or when discovery could have been made with reasonable diligence.
Limitation Act 1980, s.32
Article 1 Protocol 1 (A1P1) ECHR: Protection of peaceful enjoyment of possessions; deprivation only permitted in the public interest and subject to conditions provided for by law.
Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
Private nuisance: Violation of real property rights, including interference with use and enjoyment of land. Emanation from defendant's land is not always required.
Williams v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2019] QB 601, Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2024] AC 1
Public nuisance: Act or omission endangering life, health, property, morals, or comfort of the public, or obstructing public rights. Requires damage beyond general public inconvenience.
R v Rimmington [2005] UKHL 63, Attorney-General v Tod Heatley [1897] 1 Ch 560, Vanderpant v Mayfair Hotel Co [1930] 1 Ch 138
Outcomes
Claims for private and public nuisance struck out.
Claims did not meet the legal requirements for nuisance; no reasonable grounds for bringing them.
SCC's application for summary judgment dismissed for all other claims.
Tandem had a real prospect of success on the misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and A1P1 claims, either on the merits or because limitation issues were too complex for summary judgment. The court highlighted the factual overlap between the claims which required full trial.