Property Week quotes Andrew Ross on the case of Romal Capital v Peel Holdings

In November 2025, the High Court ruled in favour of housebuilder Romal Capital, which had sued landowner Peel Holdings for breach of contract by failing to support its planning application for a 646-home scheme at Liverpool Waters, leading it to develop a smaller, 330-home scheme. The ruling vindicated the developer’s decision to pursue a case that involved more than 80,000 legal documents and four years of legal strife.

In the judgment, Justice Fancourt said Peel had breached its contractual obligations under a 2018 Agreement for Lease (AfL) to co-operate with and assist Romal in pursuing planning consent, adding that Romal had had a 60% chance of securing planning consent for a 646-home scheme or an alternative 538-home scheme.

It had been billed as a "David-versus-Goliath" legal case for the housing world: an SME housebuilder taking a giant landowner to the High Court over breach of contract for a scheme that many contemporaries may have simply written off.

Andrew Ross, Partner in our Real Estate Disputes team, speaks to Property Week and provides analysis on the judgment. He explains:

The court’s treatment of ‘loss of a chance’ was equally striking. It found a 60% chance of success of obtaining planning permission, combining a 20% likelihood of council approval with a 40% chance on appeal. This is a rare, forensic breakdown that adds clarity to how damages may be assessed in complex disputes involving agreements conditional on obtaining planning permission.

Andrew adds that the case “shows how courts are willing to balance the preservation of heritage and public interest in practical terms” and that “The inspector’s approval of a 330-apartment scheme, despite heritage objections, was taken as evidence of what might have been achieved with the larger developments – it’s a pragmatic, real-world approach to regeneration.”

Read the full article in Property Week here.