Millgate had sought planning permission from Wokingham Borough Council and had their application refused. However, the local authority suggested that the reasons for refusal could in part be overcome by the giving of an acceptable unilateral undertaking. Millgate entered into the unilateral undertaking, but they also appealed against the initial refusal. The appeal was allowed and consent granted, with the planning inspector also stating in his report that Wokingham had failed to show that the contributions contained in the undertaking were necessary. Wokingham later sought to enforce the undertaking.
Millgate challenged the enforceability of the undertaking through judicial review. It argued that Wokingham had failed to take into account relevant considerations, had taken into account irrelevant considerations and had acted unreasonably.
The court held that the undertaking was enforceable in law as it had been entered into without any condition that it was enforceable only if the inspector agreed that it was necessary. As such, enforcement of a valid undertaking was not Wednesbury unreasonable. Furthermore, reliance on the legal principle in Tesco (that enforceability of an undertaking does not depend upon degree of nexus to the development, but rather to the undertaking's provisions) was not irrelevant.