Angela Mary Heyes v Sarah Holt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Paul Matthews |
| Judgment Date | 10 April 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 779 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: PT-2023-BRS-000004 |
[2024] EWHC 779 (Ch)
HHJ Paul Matthews
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Case No: PT-2023-BRS-000004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN BRISTOL
PROPERTY, TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD)
Bristol Civil Justice Centre
2 Redcliff Street, Bristol, BS1 6GR
Alexander Learmonth KC (instructed by Coodes LLP) for the Applicant
Alex Troup KC (instructed by Direct Access) for the Respondents
Hearing dates: 18 March 2024
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this revised version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This judgment will be handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties or representatives by email and release to The National Archives. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10:30 am on 10 April 2024.
Introduction
This is my judgment on an application by the defendant by notice dated 21 February 2024 for reverse summary judgment against the claimants. The claim is one based on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, and was commenced by claim form issued on 5 January 2023, accompanied by particulars of claim of the same date. The claim is against the defendant both personally and as executrix of the late Patrick Holt (“Mr Holt”), the defendant's husband, who died on 22 March 2020. The defendant and her late husband had two children, Angela and Jennifer. The defendant also had a son, Justin, by a former marriage. Angela is the first claimant, and the second claimant is her husband, Neil. They have two children, Lily and Charlie. Jennifer and Justin also have families, though for present purposes it is unnecessary to go into details. For ease of reference, I will refer to non-parties apart from the late Mr Holt by their given names, but intending no disrespect thereby.
The claim itself relates to two properties. The first is Belmont Farm, near Devoran, Truro in Cornwall. This consists of a farmhouse, garden, cottage, outbuildings and some 22 acres of agricultural land. The second is land at Tregoose Farm, also near Truro, which amounts to about 38 acres, including 10 acres forming one field, known as Dog Park. The second property is to the east of the first, and is separated from it by a watercourse. Mr Holt farmed both properties before his death. The defendant inherited Belmont Farm from her late husband by virtue of his (unchallenged) will, dated 7 March 2019. This property was purchased by Mr Holt from his own mother in 1982, although it had been in his family for some generations before. The land at Tregoose Farm was originally purchased by Mr Holt and his brother in 1973, but the brother's share was bought out in 1985, and at Mr Holt's death it was jointly owned at law by him and the defendant. If this matter goes to trial there may be an issue between the parties as to whether the then beneficial ownership of this land was as joint tenants or as tenants in common, but nothing turns on that for present purposes.
The claimants' case is that Mr Holt wished the farm to continue to be farmed by his descendants (see the particulars of claim, at [9]), and the defendant accepts that she and Mr Holt hoped that the farm would remain in the family (see her witness statement, at [26]). But it is also common ground that Mr Holt and the defendant wished to be fair as between their three children. In 2016 or 2017 transfers were executed to give a field to each of the first claimant and her sister Jennifer. (In fact, these transfers were never registered at the Land Registry, and so take effect in equity only.) The claimants plead (in the particulars of claim at [23.14] and [24]) that Mr Holt stated his intention to give a property on the farm called “the Cottage” to Jennifer. They also plead (at [23.13]) that in September 2019 he expressed the intention to split the Dog Park between the three children pending a sale for development. The experts have not yet produced a valuation of the farm, but the first claimant's desktop valuation is £7.45 million. This includes £200,000 for the Cottage, and £5 million for the Dog Park, bearing in mind its development potential. The farm without Jennifer's cottage and the Dog Park would on this basis be worth £2.25 million. (It compares with the probate value of Mr Holt's estate, which was £1.87 million net, although of course only half of the value of the Tregoose land was attributable to Mr Holt's estate, and he owned assets other than the farm.)
The proceedings are between a daughter and her husband on the one side, and her mother and her father's estate, supported by the daughter's two siblings, on the other. It is a tragedy for all concerned. This is not only because it splits a family, pitting a parent and two children against another child in a dispute about family property, like a modern-day King Lear. It is also because the costs budgeted for are significant in proportion to the value of the property concerned. The approved costs budget for the claimants is £442,015.85, and that for the defendant is £331,230. Together, they amount to £773,245.85, plus applicable VAT of perhaps £154.649.17, making a total of £927,895.02. Of course, in deciding whether to order summary judgment, the court will not be influenced by the cost or length of a full-scale trial: see for example Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 3) [2003] 2 AC 1, [264]; Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 273 (Ch), [15].
This application
The application for summary judgment itself was made by paragraph 1 of box 3 of the notice dated 21 February 2024. It is supported by the witness statement of the defendant dated the same date. It is opposed by the witness statement of the first claimant, dated 11 March 2024. This is slightly late, but sensibly no point is taken on that. The first claimant has also made a second witness statement, dated 15 March 2024, dealing with the claimants' financial resources. I will come back to all of these. The wording of paragraph 1 of the notice is in conventional terms, tracking the wording of the relevant rule, CPR rule 24.3 (which is set out below).
In addition to paragraph 1 of box 3 of the notice, the applicant seeks the following further or alternative relief:
“2. Alternatively, if the Court permits the claim to proceed at all, a conditional order pursuant to para 5 of Practice Direction 24, requiring the Claimants to pay an appropriate sum of money into court within a short period in default of which the claim be dismissed.
3. Injunctive relief is [sic] against the Claimants; final in the event that the application in paragraph 1 above succeeds, or interim pending in the event it fails. The Defendant seeks an order that:
(a) An order restraining the Claimants from keeping or allowing any of their pigs, horses or other livestock on the Defendant's property at the Farm.
(b) An order restraining the Claimants themselves, their servants or agents from entering the Defendant's land without her prior written permission.
4. In the event that the application in paragraph 1 is unsuccessful, then directions are sought pursuant to para 10 of PD 24 and generally and in particular directions:
(a) As to extended dates for service of witness statements;
(b) As to instruction of expert evidence and extended dates for the same;
(c) that the Claimants provide disclosure of further documents, in particular the full audio recordings which they have either not disclosed at all, or of which they have so far disclosed only extracts.
5. Costs.”
(I should just add that, since 1 October 2023, the Practice Direction to Part 24 has been revoked. This means that the references to it in the notice are strictly inaccurate. But I do not think that anything turns on that.)
There are a number of unusual features to this application for summary judgment. One is that statements of case are already complete. The defendant filed a defence (but, despite complaining of trespass by the claimants on her land, no counterclaim) on 6 March 2023, and a reply was filed by the claimants on 28 April 2023. This means that the issues between the parties can be clearly identified, which is not usually the case. Another is that directions to trial have already been given, by DJ Taylor on 27 July 2023, as varied by a consent order dated 2 February 2024. As a result, disclosure has already taken place in this claim. This in turn means that the usual speculation as to what might be revealed on disclosure is of less importance to the summary judgment application than would otherwise be the case.
Another unusual feature is that the claimants made a number of sound recordings of conversations between themselves on the one hand and the defendant and her late husband on the other. These deal with the subject matter of the claim, and in particular with the assurances which are said by the claimants to have been made to them. The defendant says that most of these recordings were made surreptitiously, without her or her husband's knowledge. But she also says that they demonstrate that no such assurances as are pleaded were in fact given.
Law
Summary judgment
The court's jurisdiction to give summary judgment (either against the defendant in favour of the claimant, or vice versa) arises under CPR rule 24.3, which since October 2023 relevantly provides:
“The court may give summary judgment against a claimant or defendant on the whole of a claim or on an issue if—
(a) it considers that the party has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim, defence or issue; and
(b) there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial.”
In this connection, it is well established...
To continue reading
Request your trial