Romal Capital yesterday won its ‘David vs Goliath’ High Court Case vs Peel Holdings over, amongst other things, a breach of contract at its Liverpool Waters scheme which added cost and significantly diminished profit to Romal Capital who will be awarded sizeable damages as a result.
The exact amount in compensation to be determined in due course but will likely run over £10m.
The High Court delivered a judgment in a significant commercial dispute between Romal Capital (C02) Limited and Peel L&P (Ports) Limited concerning a major waterfront development on Peel’s Liverpool Waters regeneration scheme.
In the judgment handed down on Tuesday, Mr Justice Fancourt emphatically allowed Romal’s claim that Peel’s actions caused it to lose a real and substantial chance of obtaining planning permission for a larger and significantly more profitable scheme. The Court has allowed Romal’s multi-million pound damages claim in full with final quantum to be confirmed at a hearing before Christmas.
The judgment is vindication for Romal’s belief that it was wronged by Peel’s actions and lost the chance to obtain much greater profits.
Romal said that it had missed out on millions in profits as a result of Peel’s actions when it brought the lawsuit earlier this year.
Romal is developing a 330-home development at Liverpool Waters – where Peel is master developer – but insists the scheme would have had almost double the number of units had Peel not breached an agreement for lease and refused to assist Romal in obtaining planning consent.
Romal sought damages from Peel on the basis that two larger schemes – 646 units and 538 – would have generated far higher profits than the £13.1m generated by the 330-home project.
Romal states the 646-apartment project would have generated up to £27.5m profit and the 538-flat scheme up to £23.6m.
Peel’s defence stated that it gave Romal “no warranties or representations” and that the agreement for lease signed by the two parties “conferred upon Romal an opportunity”. Peel added that Romal itself “failed to abide” by certain “contractual steps”.
A judge has found in favour of Romal saying that Peel had breached the AfL by not assisting Romal to secure planning permission for the larger scheme.
The judge said: “There was a total lack of endeavour on the part of Peel to seek to integrate Romal’s designs with its own designs for Central Docks.”
Statement from Romal Capital: “Romal Capital welcomes the court decision regarding the C02 Liverpool Waters development. The outcome recognises Romal’s consistent commitment to integrity, collaboration, and city-focused regeneration.
“From the very beginning, Romal’s sole intention has been to create quality homes, enhance Liverpool’s historic waterfront, and contribute to the city’s ongoing transformation. As the first private developer selected by Peel in 2017 to commence development on Central Docks, Romal has always taken pride in being a trusted delivery partner for the city and its people. Our early commitment helped activate the 2013 masterplan and brought forward phase C Central Docks before earlier planned phases on King Edward Triangle, directly supporting the huge investment of the Isle of Man Ferry Terminal —a pivotal moment for Liverpool Waters.
“Romal has since delivered one of the largest private infrastructure programmes in the city’s recent history, opening Liverpool’s northern docks to the public for the first time in 70 years. To date, more than 370 high-quality homes have been completed, with a further 128 scheduled for completion by August 2026. These developments have created a thriving, connected community, while Romal’s ongoing investment continues to improve access, connectivity, and sustainability across the docklands.”
The Court held that:
+ Romal’s planning applications (646 Unit Scheme and later 538 Unit Scheme) were made pursuant to the AfL despite some procedural deviations and Peel is estopped from asserting otherwise.
+ Peel breached its contractual obligations to cooperate and assist Romal in pursuing planning permission.
+ Specifically, Peel failed to integrate it designs with Romal’s, withheld critical information about its own masterplan changes, and did not provide the support required by the AfL.
+ Peel’s actions – including submitting conflicting applications and prioritising its relationship with Liverpool City Council – significantly undermined Romal’s chances of obtaining planning permission for the larger schemes.
Romal lost a real and substantial chance (assessed to be 60%) of obtaining planning permission for the 646 Scheme or, alternatively, the 538 Scheme. Peel’s breaches were a material cause of that lost opportunity. The judgment also addresses consequential losses, including the inability to sell leases with ground rents before legislative changes prohibiting the creation of ground rent leases in June 2022.
The damages will be assessed and awarded at a future hearing but it is likely to be c. £10m.
Greg Malouf, CEO of Romal Capital, added: “The judgment enables our dedicated team to move forward with renewed energy and focus, working alongside professional partners that share our vision for excellence and our belief that great cities are built through collaboration. Our team of engineers, designers, and construction specialists remains committed to placemaking—creating spaces that are as inclusive and inspiring as the city they serve and love…
“We will continue building homes, improving infrastructure, and delivering projects that celebrate this great city’s heritage while shaping its future.”
A spokesperson from Peel Waters said: “We acknowledge today’s judgment and are disappointed with the outcome. We remain committed to the successful delivery of Liverpool Waters and will now take time to review the judgment in detail before considering our next steps.
“Our priority continues to be working collaboratively with partners to bring forward new homes, jobs and investment for the city.”
Damages
The Court will award Romal substantial damages of:
+ The percentage chance multiplied by the difference in the profits that Romal might have expected to make on the 646 Scheme compared to the consented 330 Scheme;
+ Lost ground rent income on sales that would have been completed pre-June 2022; and
+ Interest on those damages.
