Persimmon Homes v Harding Estates: summary judgement granted over late infrastructure works

Persimmon Homes has failed to defend a claim that it breached its obligation to complete infrastructure works on time under a land sale agreement, with the High Court granting summary judgement on liability against the housebuilder.

In Persimmon Homes Ltd v Harding Estates (East Anglia) Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 2481 (Ch), Master Teverson, sitting in retirement, allowed the defendants' CPR 24 application on the single breach on which it was pursued. A trial on quantum will follow, and the defendants' application for an interim payment of £15.15 million is to be heard separately.

Under a September 2021 agreement, Persimmon bought land with outline permission for up to 297 dwellings for £9.785 million. It also undertook to procure the infrastructure works, including a new A120 roundabout, a spine road and drainage, within two years of completion. That deadline fell in March 2024, and it is common ground that the works were not finished.

Persimmon sought declarations that it was entitled to an extension of time under paragraph 8.2 of Schedule 2, which applies where the seller unreasonably withholds or delays approval of a matter requiring its consent, including the location of attenuation ponds. Its case was that four update emails, sent between March 2022 and October 2023, were requests for approval to relocate an attenuation pond, and that approval was never given.

The emails went to a contact who, it was said, had left the defendants' employment shortly after signing. The master proceeded on the footing that Persimmon received no automatic replies and did not know of the departure. Two of the three alleged breaches were unsuitable for summary determination, so the application rested on the failure to complete the works alone.

The master declined to decide whether the highway authority had in fact required the pond to move, a question that may need expert evidence. He resolved the application on two other grounds.

The first was construction. Applying the guidance that the court should "grasp the nettle" on short points of construction where it has the necessary evidence, the master held that the emails could not be read as seeking approval. Their stated purpose was to keep the sellers informed of progress and invite comment on the roundabout and link road designs. They did not mention the attenuation pond, even if drawings linked within them showed its proposed position.

Relocation of the pond was not a routine matter, he said, given its potential effect on the retained and neighbouring land. Approval had to be sought expressly and in writing. The agreement's machinery for deemed consent, which operates after a further request goes unanswered, indicated that seeking approval was regarded as a formal step. He did not accept the defendants' argument that email requests for consent had to satisfy the separate provisions on service of notices.

The second ground was causation. Persimmon's own correspondence from October 2023 attributed the delay to the technical approval process with the highways body. In March 2024 its representative accepted that the sellers had not previously been blamed for any delay, with the complaint being that objections came late. On that basis, Persimmon had no realistic prospect of showing that the delay resulted from the defendants unreasonably withholding approval.

Reliance on the contractual duty of good faith also failed, as the breach was distinct and not caused by any wrong on the defendants' part.

Finding no compelling reason for a trial on liability, he granted judgement on that issue. Jonathan Seitler KC and Samuel Cathro, instructed by Walker Morris, appeared for Persimmon. Paul Downes KC, instructed by Hill Dickinson, appeared for the defendants.