- Planning permission construed as requiring development of the whole or substantially the whole of option land (Fishbourne Developments Ltd v Stephens)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Property Disputes analysis: This case concerned the proper interpretation of the phrase ‘planning permission’ in an option agreement where the option was triggered by the grant of planning permission and whether it was satisfied by planning permission being granted for a part of the option land only or required the permission to be granted in relation to the whole or substantially the whole of the option land. Applying the approach in Arnold v Britton, the court upheld the first instance judge’s decision that on its proper construction ‘planning permission’ in the option meant a planning permission for the development of the whole or substantially the whole of the option land. The case is an example of the Court applying Arnold v Britton in the context of an option agreement. Written by John Litton QC of Landmark Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial