Reginald Dean Hyde & Ors V Simple Skips Limited & Ors

A settlement obligation to clear all waste from identified areas is construed objectively according to the contract’s natural and ordinary meaning, read in its factual and commercial context. Clear language must be applied. Unless the agreement provides otherwise, an obligation expressed in those terms is not confined by an earlier survey, a later operational date, or an estimated volume, weight or number of lorry loads. A party alleging breach bears the civil burden of proof. Serious allegations such as dishonesty require cogent evidence, but the standard remains the balance of probabilities.

The claim arose from a prior judgment finding the defendants liable for trespass damages arising from unlawful waste deposits. The Second Defendant entered into a settlement agreement under which he was required to clear all waste from Mound 2 and the rear of the bays. After removing approximately 630 lorry loads, he left the site and alleged that further waste had been added by the claimants.

The court tried four issues: the date by reference to which the waste was identified; whether the Second Defendant had cleared all relevant waste; whether additional waste had been added; and whether performance was measured by weight or volume.

1. Construction. Clause 6 of the Settlement Agreement required the Second Defendant to clear all waste present in Mound 2 and the rear of the bays as at 8 December 2017, the date of the agreement. The clause was clear and unambiguous. The court applied the principles summarised in TAQA Bratani Ltd v Rockrose [2020] EWHC 58 (Comm), drawing on Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50, Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36 and Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24.
2. The obligation was not limited to waste shown by the 2016 survey, waste present on the Operative Date, or any specified volume, tonnage or number of lorry loads. The reference to the Operative Date identified the beginning of the six-month performance period. It did not fix the quantity of waste to be removed.
3. The claimants bore the legal burden of establishing that the quantity of waste had not materially increased after the settlement date. The applicable standard was the balance of probabilities. In assessing dishonesty allegations, the court applied the approach in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67 and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2001] UKHL 47. The allegations required cogent evidence but no heightened civil standard.
4. The evidence established that no material volume of waste had been added after 8 December 2017, but that a substantial quantity remained when the Second Defendant left on 3 February 2021. His removal of approximately 10,000 tonnes, estimated at approximately 5,883m³, did not discharge an obligation to remove all waste. Estimated weight or volume could not alone determine performance because the agreement imposed no quantitative limit.
5. The Second Defendant therefore breached clause 6. The parties were directed to agree the consequential form of order, including the claimants’ application to enforce the judgment sum of £300,000.

The judgment describes an earlier High Court trial resulting in [2017] EWHC 3087 (QB), followed by settlement agreements and a Tomlin Order. The present judgment determined four issues arising from the application to lift the stay and enforce the settlement terms.