Families take Grundy Fold Farm cases to High Court with mixed fortunes

While one secured a limited victory, another couple have been told their bid for legal redress against businessman Ian Holden and Sparkle Developments, over the ill-fated Grundy Fold Farm saga, has failed.

Peter and Alison Thompson were involved in a deal to purchase Plot 5 at the development, which comprised the site of the original farmhouse at Grundy Fold.

And Elendra and Piral Raja had purchased the freehold, via a family member's property company, for Plot 1 there, one of the other luxury homes to be constructed.

But in 2018 Bolton Council ordered the mansions to be torn down as they breached height permissions and had been built in the wrong place.

This decision was later confirmed at a public inquiry and the properties have now in fact been demolished.

The Thompsons and the Rajas launched damages claims for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligence against Mr Holden and Sparkle, of which he is a director.

The High Court was told Grundy Fold Farm was originally in the ownership of Andrew Pendlebury, who sold parts of the land to Mr Holden and Sparkle, and building contractor Robert Jackson and his company, Rosehelm, for £1.3m in 2015.

Earlier Mr Pendlebury had obtained planning permission for the extension of an existing farmhouse, demolishing some outbuildings and erecting four new houses.

Giving evidence at trial, Mr Raja told the court he believes Mr Holden and Mr Jackson are personally responsible for having encouraged him to enter into contractual commitments under the impression he could freely build his new homes according to his own specifications. The Thompsons also said they were told everything was in order in relation to planning approvals for the land.

High Court Judge Mark Halliwell, sitting as part of the Commercial Court in Manchester, dismissed contractual claims, on behalf of both couples, as he was satisfied neither Mr Holden nor Sparkle were party to the building contracts.

The court heard the misrepresentation claims against Mr Holden and Sparkle covered three general areas - that the claimants "could design their own dwelling including in terms of the build, siting, footprint, volume and orientation", "everything was in place in terms of planning control" and "the contractor will not start work before any planning permission that is needed has been received…".

The Grundy Fold Farm site

The judge rejected arguments that the Thompsons and Rajas had been misled on the first and third claims. And the Rajas case on the second claim also failed.

But Judge Halliwell did rule in the Thompsons' favour in respect of 'deceit' covering the second 'misrepresentation', saying that between dates in January and May 2016 "Mr Holden continued to give Mr and Mrs Thompson the impression that, following the demolition of the farmhouse, their new house could be constructed on the site without a breach of planning control.

"In doing so, I am satisfied he represented to them that everything was in place for planning purposes in the sense that the demolition and intended redevelopment could be achieved without a breach of planning control."

The judge also dismissed negligence claims involving both couples as while they had received certain advice about their house projects, they had each instructed solicitors who could "reasonably have expected them to obtain advice about their legal rights and commitments".

In his final ruling, Judge Halliwell said the Thompsons, on his 'deceit' finding, would be entitled to damages both for wasted costs and professional fees in relation to their building project and related inconvenience and distress caused.

Further High Court claims against a third party, experienced building contractor Robert Jackson and his firm Rosehelm, were stayed on August 25 "subject to their scheduled obligations to pay the claimants some £712,500 by instalment supported by a charge over Plot 2" at the development.

Judge Halliwell also said the terms of the settlement were confidential subject to a further court order.