A statement in a submission to a planning authority that a party will 'offer to contribute' to construction costs is not, of itself, an offer capable of acceptance so as to form a binding contract with a third party. Conduct that is merely consistent with the existence of a contract, but equally explicable by regulatory requirements, does not positively indicate the existence of a contract. For restitutionary claims for work and labour done, the plaintiff must establish that the works were performed pursuant to the defendant's request; it is not sufficient to show that the defendant received a benefit, particularly where the plaintiff was already contractually obligated to a third party to perform the works and was paid in full for them.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.