Sundorne Products (Llanidloes) Limited v Geminor UK Limited
[2024] EWHC 1666 (Ch)
Reginald Dean Hyde & Ors V Simple Skips Limited & Ors
24 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 672 (KB)
High Court
A waste disposal company was ordered to clean up a mess, but didn't completely finish the job. A judge reviewed the agreement they signed, found the company broke the contract, and allowed the original party to collect £300,000 they were already owed.
Key Facts
- •Stephen Hyde owned Oakfield Farm until his death in 2014.
- •Claimants are executors of Hyde's will and ITR Global Limited (tenant).
- •Defendants (Simple Skips Limited, John Corney, Keith Stiles) operated a waste disposal site, their permit revoked in 2017.
- •2017 judgment found Defendants jointly liable for £942,620 in damages (including £605,840 for trespass).
- •Separate settlement agreements followed, with Corney agreeing to clear Mound 2 and the rear of the bays.
- •Claimants sought enforcement of the judgment due to Corney's alleged breach of the settlement agreement.
- •Trial focused on four issues: the date for determining the waste to be removed, whether Corney cleared all waste by February 2021, whether additional waste was added to Mound 2, and the measurement of waste (weight or volume).
Legal Principles
Contractual interpretation principles from Rainy Sky SA v Kookim Bank [2011] UKSC 50, Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, and Wood v Capita Insurance Services Limited [2017] UKSC 24.
TAQA Bratani Limited v Rockrose [2020] EWHC 58 (Comm)
Burden of proof rests on Claimants to show Corney breached the settlement agreement.
N/A
Standard of proof for dishonesty allegations is balance of probabilities, requiring cogent evidence (Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Limited [2017] UKSC 67).
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2001] UKHL 47
Outcomes
Corney's obligation was to clear all waste from Mound 2 and the rear of the bays as of 8 December 2017 (the Settlement Agreement date).
The court found the language in the agreement clear and unambiguous, rejecting interpretations based on previous surveys or the 'Operative Date'.
Corney did not clear all waste by February 2021.
Corney admitted leaving substantial waste; evidence supported Claimants' assertion that Corney removed approximately 50% of the waste.
No material amount of additional waste was added to Mound 2 after the Settlement Agreement date.
The court rejected allegations of Claimants' dishonesty and considered the evidence (witness testimonies, expert analysis of surveys and photographs) insufficient to prove waste addition.
Waste removal measurement is irrelevant; the obligation was to remove all waste, not a specific weight or volume.
The agreement didn't specify a volume or weight limit; the court accepted Mr. Falcon's estimates of waste removed by Corney and ME Waste, clarifying that Corney did not fulfill his obligation.
Corney breached clause 6 of the Settlement Agreement.
Failure to remove all waste from Mound 2 and the rear of the bays, as per the Settlement Agreement.
Similar Cases
Resource Recovery Solutions (Derbyshire) Limited (in administration) v Derbyshire County Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 708 (TCC)
Michael Jordan v David Thorner
[2023] EWHC 840 (Ch)
Kew Green Group Limited & Anor v Jamerson Lamb & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1628 (KB)
Chedington Events Limited v Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake & Anor (Quantum trial consequential orders)
[2024] EWHC 11 (Ch)