Proceedings were instigated and the parties decided to try mediation. The defendant advised that the housing development was nowhere near complete, the value of the land had dropped, he had probably lost his original £350,000, what possible reason would he have to invest the remainder, especially when he was under no obligation to.

The claimants alleged he was under an obligation to, following the series of meetings they had and the particular conversation which this all relied upon. Equally they had only stopped construction as they had run out of money, having borrowed to make up the difference in the defendants share.

Neither party was willing to move, wanting to rely solely on the original contract which itself could have been construed better. A number of options were presented by both sides on how they could resolve this matter, which unsurprisingly appeared to favour more their position than the other sides.

An agreement was finally reached, whereby the defendant agreed to purchase the site off the claimants and complete the work and sell on the properties as he saw fit, the purchase price was nothing compared to the profit the defendant would make when he sold the properties. The purchase price allowed the claimants to relinquish all their debts, pay off all their partners, as well as be rid of this headache, which they clearly needed, as well as turn a small profit, nothing compared to what they could have made if the project was seen through to completion, but a resolution nevertheless.