Phil Sissons acts for the successful claimant in The People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals v Patrick Ryan and others, Birmingham County Court, HHJ Truman, 2 May 2026 18 May 2026
The facts
The Claimant, PDSA, is a charity with the object of providing low cost veterinary care. It had operated a veterinary hospital in Nottingham for many years, but the hospital building was no longer fit for purpose. Accordingly, in 2018, PDSA identified a possible site for a new hospital, a former gasworks off Radford Road. The site was owned by the Defendants (in their capacity as the trustees of a private pension fund).
In August 2020, the parties entered into a conditional contract for the purchase of the land by the PDSA. The contract was subject to various pre-conditions, including the grant of the requisite planning and highway consents for a new access road. By this time, PDSA had already obtained planning permission for the new hospital.
The proposed access road was to be built on adjoining land which would be retained by the Defendants (with the PDSA granted a right of way over it, until it was adopted). The Defendants were obliged to apply for and use reasonable endeavours to obtain the requisite consents.
Crucially, the Defendants also agreed to construct the access road by specific deadlines; the works to construct the road had to be commenced within 1 month of the completion of the sale and completed within 6 months of that date. The Defendants were also obliged to lay, on their own land, service media (sewage, gas and electricity) to a defined point into which the PDSA could then connect the services for the new hospital
The contract completed by the transfer of the hospital site to PDSA in April 2021. By that date, there was no planning permission in place for the new access road(nor any highway consent). Both parties mistakenly believed that the planning permission obtained by PDSA included permission for the off-site access road.
The Defendants failed to comply with the requirement to build the road (or provide the service facilities) by the deadlines stated in the contract. In fact, the Defendants never built the road, but instead, in June 2023, sold the retained land to a third-party, Strata, for the purposes of a residential development of 114 units.
PDSA wished to open its new hospital in Spring 2022 and had made various arrangements to relocate, including entering into a contract for the construction of the new hospital. The absence of the access road would substantially delay that timetable and therefore the relocation from the old hospital, leading to various adverse consequences.
Accordingly, on advice from a planning consultant, PDSA swiftly obtained a temporary planning permission and highways consent to create a new access in a different location, leading directly onto the hospital site from the public highway. It then built that new access at its own cost and, in due course, successfully applied for permission to use it as the permanent hospital access.
PDSA claimed the costs of obtaining the requisite consents and the cost of the physical works (plus associated professional costs) in constructing the new access as damages for breach of contract. PDSA also sought to claim an additional sum (£25,000) as general damages to reflect the management time spent by its staff, which was diverted from other useful activities.
The decision
The judge (HHJ Truman) awarded the Claimant the full amount of damages, save for the management time element.
The Defendants did not admit the breach of contract, but the judge held that it was made out on the facts (the road and service facilities had not been constructed in time; the obligation to obtain consent for and construct these was squarely placed on the Defendants by the contract). The judge also dismissed an argument that PDSA was estopped from pursuing the claim; the email relied on by the Defendants could not fairly be interpreted as a promise or representation by PDSA not to rely on its contractual rights and, in any case, there was no evidence of detrimental reliance.
The Defendants had argued that there were various options available to the PDSA and that the construction of the alternative access was the most expensive of those options. Accordingly, the Defendants said, PDSA had failed to act in reasonable mitigation of any loss caused by the breaches. The judge rejected that argument as well. Remaining in occupation of the old hospital whilst the originally intended access road was built would have occasioned far greater losses to PDSA. The standard to which the new access road was built and its location were necessary to satisfy the requirements of the local planning and highway authority and the PDSA could not properly be criticised for complying with those requirements.
Finally the Defendants argued that a discount against the damages claimed should be applied to reflect the betterment of the PDSA’s site. The originally intended access road had (eventually) been built by the third party developer, with the result that the new hospital had two physical access points. This, it was said, was a positive benefit to PDSA for which credit should be given. The judge also rejected this argument. PDSA had not contracted for two points of access and it was not obvious that this was of any (or any quantifiable) benefit to PDSA.
As for the management costs, the judge accepted that significant management time had been spent by PDSA’s staff as a result of the Defendants’ breaches of contract. However, applying the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [ 2007] EWCA Civ 3, per Longmore LJ at [86], the PDSA had not provided sufficiently detailed evidence of the amount of time devoted by staff members and the actual cost of that time to PDSA.
The result was that PDSA succeeded in beating a Part 36 offer made at an early stage in the proceedings and was therefore entitled to the additional sum, enhanced interest and costs assessed on the indemnity basis.
Phil Sissons, instructed by Shakespeare Martineau LLP, acted for the successful Claimant.
Back to articles
