News

High Court delivers judgment in solar park case

Mr Justice Constable delivered judgment in a solar park dispute, dismissing claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and restitution.

Arfan Khan appeared for the Claimants at short notice. The Claimant’s earlier pleadings had been prepared by leading and junior counsel from different leading commercial chambers in London.

The judge refused permission to appeal his decision and reduced the Defendant’s recoverable costs. In addition, the judge ordered the Defendant to pay the costs arising from their Amended Defence, which was ultimately found immaterial.

The Claimants’ solicitors, acting on the client’s instructions, agreed to the Amended Defence in open correspondence, without waiver of the Claimant’s right to file an Amended Reply as expressly permitted by the Defendant’s draft order. The correspondence confirming the agreement to the Amended Defence was referred to during the Claimants’ oral submissions, without waiver of the right to file an Amended Reply. This right was exercised during closing arguments, after the Defendant concluded its case based on the amended defence, at which point a response became relevant. Until that point, the amendments were not relevant for a response.

For practical reasons, there is no further appeal against the judgments and, therefore, the correctness of the judge’s reasons will be untested at appellate level in this case.

The judge’s reasons can be accessed through the following links:

Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd (Re Consequential Matters) [2025] EWHC 503 (KB) (07 March 2025)

Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd [2025] EWHC 410 (KB) (26 February 2025)