Nicola Pauline West v Wendy Elizabeth Churchill & Anor
[2024] EWHC 940 (Ch)
Angela Mary Heyes & Anor v Sarah Holt
10 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 779 (Ch)
High Court
A family is fighting over a farm after the father's death. The mother (defendant) tried to get the case thrown out quickly, saying the daughter and son-in-law (claimants) couldn't win. The judge said the case is weak but not hopeless, so it can go to trial, but the claimants must first give the mother some financial security. The judge also suggested they try to settle out of court and stopped the daughter and son-in-law from going onto the farm until the case is finished.
Key Facts
- •Claim based on proprietary estoppel relating to two properties: Belmont Farm and Tregoose Farm.
- •Claimants are a daughter and her husband; defendant is the daughter's mother and executrix of her late father's estate.
- •Dispute concerns the inheritance of the farms, with the claimants alleging assurances from the deceased father and defendant.
- •Significant documentary evidence exists, including sound recordings of conversations.
- •High legal costs budgeted for the case.
- •Defendant applied for reverse summary judgment.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment can be granted if a party has no real prospect of succeeding and there is no other compelling reason for a trial.
CPR rule 24.3
On a summary judgment application, the burden of proof rests on the applicant.
ED&F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472
A 'realistic' claim is one that carries some degree of conviction and is more than merely arguable.
Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
The court must not conduct a 'mini-trial' when considering summary judgment applications.
Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91
In proprietary estoppel, there must be a clear promise or assurance relating to identified property, relied upon to the detriment of the promisee, making it unconscionable for the promisor to renege.
Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776
Interpretation of spoken words is a question of fact.
Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] 1 WLR 2042
A conditional order can be made on a summary judgment application, requiring payment into court as a condition of allowing the claim to proceed.
CPR rule 24.6 and rule 3.1(3)
The test for granting an interim injunction involves considering whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether damages would be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
Outcomes
Defendant's application for summary judgment dismissed.
While the claimants' case is weak, it is not so weak as to have only a fanciful prospect of success. Factual disputes exist that require a trial.
Conditional order made.
Claimants must either provide security for costs through charges on their assets or pay a sum into court. Failure to comply will result in the claim's dismissal.
Stay of proceedings ordered to allow for mediation.
Mediation encouraged in light of case weakness and high costs.
Interim injunction granted.
To restrain the claimants from trespassing on the defendant's land.
Further directions given for disclosure and trial preparation.
To ensure full disclosure of all relevant recordings and to set timelines for expert evidence and witness statements.