Where damages would be an inadequate remedy for either party the court must decide where the balance of the risk of injustice lies when considering the grant of an injunction.
The High Court has considered this issue refusing an application for an injunction in Matthews v Matthews [2024] EWHC 2182 (Ch).
The case concerned a dispute over the sale of various properties owned by the defendant who was elderly and lacked capacity. The claimant was the defendant’s second cousin and formerly his attorney for property and financial affairs.
The defendant, was property rich and cash poor. His Deputy wished to sell certain properties to raise funds to clear his debts and fund his care costs.
Strutt & Parker were instructed to value his land and advise on what should be sold to generate the necessary funds. Their advice, which the Deputy followed, was to sell three lots of farmland which formed an almost contiguous block of land.
An offer of £5.8m was recommended with simultaneous exchange and completion six weeks from acceptance of the offer.
Without a sale the defendant’s debts would continue to mount and he would be forced into a care home, against his will.
The claimant sought to restrain the sale relying on an oral option from the defendant to purchase the properties at full market value. While unenforceable under section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 the parties agreed that the oral option could, in principle, support a claim for proprietary estoppel.
The purpose of the option was to keep the land together. The claimant had acquired and was restoring a farmhouse on the land, and had worked for the defendant effectively for free in reliance upon the option.
The claimant relied upon correspondence in April 2022 as evidence of the defendant’s instruction to his solicitor to give him a formal option and upon a course of dealing: when a land transaction was proposed between them the parties would instruct a valuer to provide a fair valuation.
Strutt & Parker had valued the properties in January 2024 at £3.45m and the claimant had offered to purchase them in that sum.
While damages were not an adequate remedy for either party the court was satisfied that the damage to the defendant, who would be forced into a care home if the injunction was granted, was far more serious.
The claimant’s real difficulty was that the market value of the land was £5.8m not £3.45m and he could not afford the higher sum.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
