Angela Mary Heyes & Anor v Sarah Holt
[2024] EWHC 779 (Ch)
Nicola Pauline West v Wendy Elizabeth Churchill & Anor
26 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 940 (Ch)
High Court
A family fought over a farm after their father died without a will. One family member claimed the farm, saying others promised it to her. The judge said those promises were made during secret settlement talks, which can't be used in court. So, the judge ruled against the family member who wanted the whole farm.
Key Facts
- •Dispute over the estate of Cyril Churchill, who died intestate in 2002.
- •Claimant (Nicola West) and First Defendant (Wendy Churchill) are joint administrators of the estate.
- •Dispute centers on the beneficial ownership of farmland.
- •First Defendant claims the farm is beneficially hers, based on representations made by the Claimant during negotiations to settle a 1975 Act claim.
- •Claimant argues that the First Defendant's defence and counterclaim rely on inadmissible without prejudice communications.
- •Multiple attempts at settlement occurred between 2002 and 2011, none resulting in a concluded agreement.
Legal Principles
The without prejudice rule governs the admissibility of evidence and is founded on public policy encouraging settlement.
Rush & Tomkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] 1 AC 1280
The without prejudice rule has two justifications: public policy of encouraging settlements and implied agreement from negotiating without prejudice.
Muller v Linsley & Mortimer [1996] PNLR 74
Exceptions to the without prejudice rule exist, including estoppel.
Unilever Plc v The Proctor & Gamble Co [2000] 1 WLR 2436
For proprietary estoppel, a clear representation, reasonable reliance, and detriment must be shown.
Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18
CPR rule 3.4 allows the court to strike out a statement of case that is an abuse of process.
CPR rule 3.4
CPR rule 24.3 allows for summary judgment if a party has no real prospect of succeeding.
CPR rule 24.3
Outcomes
Claimant's application to strike out parts of the First Defendant's defence and counterclaim succeeds.
The First Defendant failed to establish a properly arguable case for reliance on without prejudice communications based on proprietary estoppel. The 'representations' were merely proposals during unsuccessful negotiations, not clear and unequivocal assurances.
First Defendant's counterclaim for a declaration of beneficial ownership is dismissed.
Based on the striking out of the inadmissible evidence.
A declaration regarding the trust of the farm will be made in accordance with section 46(1)(i) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925.
This declaration is deemed desirable to clarify remaining disputes.