Harcourt seeks High Court order preventing winding-up petition

Harcourt Developments is seeking a High Court order preventing a UK firm bringing a petition seeking to have the Dublin-based development company wound up over a disputed debt of £2 million (€2.2 million).

Harcourt, which employs more than 800 people and says it is solvent, has brought the proceedings against Surrey-based housebulder Crest Nicholson (South West) Limited.

It claims Crest Nicholson is “improperly” threatening to have Harcourt wound up and has “an ulterior motive” in seeking to have it put into liquidation.

Harcourt claims the threatened petition is an attempt to force it to sell lands in England, which the parties previously agreed to develop, to Crest at a significant undervalue.

At the High Court on Tuesday, Martin Hayden SC, with Rudi Neuman , for Harcourt, said the legal proceedings arise from a settlement agreement concerning a dispute over a joint landowners agreement (JLA) in respect of plans to develop a site near Bristol.

Harcourt entered into the agreement in 2006 with two entities, Muben Investments, which held a leasehold interest on part of the Bristol lands, and Crest Nicholson, owner of lands adjoining Muben’s property.

Framework agreement

Under a framework agreement, the parties were to work together to develop the site into housing, but the relationship between Crest and the other parties broke down in 2015 and Crest sought to terminate the agreement, counsel said.

The dispute went before an expert for determination and Harcourt believed it had resolved matters with Crest to recommence the development in 2017 when the parties entered a settlement agreement.

Part of that involved payments being made to Crest for costs it had incurred on the development.

Harcourt has made payments totalling £1.8 million to Crest but Crest has failed to provide Harcourt with vital information it requires to progress the development, counsel said. Crest had claimed it would only provide the information after being paid money allegedly owed to it by Harcourt, he said.

The settlement agreement did not provide that information would be provided by Crest after payments of additional monies to those already paid were made to it by Harcourt.

Debt collection

Last month, Crest made a demand on Harcourt for a payment of £2 million which, counsel said, was an attempt by Crest to engage in a form of disputed debt collection which it is not entitled to do.

Harcourt was “intentionally misled” by Crest and the threat of bringing a winding-up petition was an attempt to force the Irish company to sell its interest in the development to Crest, Mr Hayden said.

It also seeks declarations that any dispute arising from the settlement agreement should be heard before an English or Welsh court.

Ms Justice Carmel Stewart granted Harcourt permission to serve its injunction proceedings at short notice on Crest and returned the matter to Wednesday.