Case law: Party whose consent was required under an agreement should ensure it has enough time to decide
Parties whose approval must be obtained under an agreement should ensure the agreement expressly gives them time to decide whether to give approval, and that the time given is sufficient, or risk approval being deemed given after a reasonable time, a recent ruling makes clear.
This update was published in Legal Alert - October 2017
Legal Alert is a monthly checklist from Atom Content Marketing highlighting new and pending laws, regulations, codes of practice and rulings that could have an impact on your business.
A seller agreed to sell a building. The buyer acknowledged in the agreement that the seller intended to apply for enhanced planning permission (EPP). The terms provided that the seller would receive an additional overage payment if the EPP increased the floor area which could be developed. The seller also needed the buyer's consent, which could not be unreasonably refused, but the buyer only had ten days to decide whether to consent.
EPP was granted. Although it increased the floor area available for development, it did so by lowering the ceilings on existing floors and reducing the space between them. The buyer was not happy with this and withheld approval.
The seller was able to obtain expert evidence that the changes would not affect the marketability of the development – in fact, there would be a significant increase in the overall value of the development.
The buyer argued that it needed at least four weeks to reconsider the proposal, including time to obtain its own expert opinion. However, the High Court said that the buyer's failure to approve the EPP within the original time limit was, in these circumstances, unreasonable, and awarded compensation to the seller.
- Parties whose approval is required under an agreement should ensure the agreement expressly gives them sufficient time to decide whether to give it, or risk approval being deemed given after a reasonable time, a recent ruling makes clear
Case ref: Minerva (Wandsworth) Limited v Greenland Ram (London) Limited  EWHC 1457
Disclaimer: This article from Atom Content Marketing is for general guidance only, for businesses in the United Kingdom governed by the laws of England. Atom Content Marketing, expert contributors and ICAEW (as distributor) disclaim all liability for any errors or omissions.