Respondent developing appellants’ land under agreement to sell — Parties disputing area of land for sale — Respondent alleging proprietary estoppel — Master giving summary judgment — Whether master misapplying provisions of CPR Part 24 — Appeal dismissed
The appellant developers entered into an agreement with the respondent, whereby the respondent would develop marina facilities on the appellants’ land. The document drawn up to facilitate the arrangement was in three sections: (i) an option agreement; (ii) a plan; and (iii) an agreement for sale. The option agreement described the land that was to pass to the respondent as “all that freehold land… within the area of land shown edged red on the plan”, whereas the sale agreement described it as “all that piece or parcel… shown edged red in the annexed plan”.
A dispute arose between the parties over how much land had passed to the respondent. The respondent commenced proceedings and applied to the court for summary judgment, alleging, inter alia, proprietary estoppel on the ground that the parties had reached an agreement and the respondent had acted on that basis.
The master gave judgment for the respondent under CPR Part 24, and made an order for the transfer of the disputed land. The appellants challenged that decision, arguing that the master had misapplied the provisions of CPR Part 24.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The master had erred in his formulation of the question for his determination. He should have asked whether there was any real prospect of the appellants succeeding in their claim. The terms of the option agreement and the existence of any understanding between the parties were the live issues on the application, and it was not for the master to conduct a “mini-trial” of those issues.
However, his analysis of the evidence and issues, and his conclusion that there was no realistic prospect of a defence to the claim were correct. Bearing in mind that the appellants had conceded that the respondent was entitled to a substantial part of the land, there was no real prospect of the appellants succeeding at trial. The respondent had invested money to develop land on the understanding that he was then going to become the owner of the land. The appellants had induced that belief. There could be no equity in the respondent recovering some smaller parcel of land. On that basis, the summary judgment would stand.
Stephen Lloyd (instructed by Nelsons) appeared for the respondent; Alison MacLennan (instructed by Morrison & Masters, of Swindon) appeared for the appellants.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
