Luckett & Luckett v Ashley King (Developments) Ltd

An appellate court should interfere with a discretionary refusal to adjourn only where the discretion was wrongly exercised. An adjournment serves no proper purpose where the applicant has no real prospect of successfully resisting the substantive application. Summary judgment may be granted for specific performance where the defendant has no real defence. Repeated extensions of a contractual completion date do not, without more, show that the purchaser was unwilling or unable to perform, or create a defence based on detriment. The court may consider the correspondence and surrounding circumstances in determining whether the purchaser remained ready, willing and able to complete and whether the defendant has any arguable equitable defence.

The appellants sought permission to appeal against an order of Deputy Master Hoffman dated 9 May 2005. The Deputy Master had granted the respondent summary judgment for specific performance of a contract for the sale of property, ordered payment of costs and directed completion.

The appellants also sought permission to appeal out of time and challenged the refusal of an adjournment. They argued that the adjournment should have been granted because they were unrepresented, affected by bereavement and needed further time to arrange alternative accommodation for residents of the property. On the merits, they relied on extensions of time, alleged lack of readiness by the respondent and alleged detriment.

1. Applications dismissed. The court refused an extension of time and permission to appeal against both the refusal of an adjournment and the grant of summary judgment for specific performance.
2. The refusal of an adjournment involved the Deputy Master’s discretion. An appellate court should not interfere merely because it might have reached a different conclusion. The Deputy Master had considered the matters relied on by the appellants, including their lack of representation and personal difficulties.
3. The Deputy Master was entitled to conclude that an adjournment would serve no useful purpose because the appellants had no real defence to the claim. The delay would not assist them where they would inevitably fail on the substantive issue.
4. The correspondence showed that the respondent had remained ready, willing and able to complete, while granting extensions largely to accommodate the appellants’ need to re-house the residents. The extensions did not establish that the respondent had waived its rights or lacked the necessary readiness to perform.
5. The material disclosed no arguable basis for a defence founded on detriment. The appellants knew that vacant possession had to be given and had agreed a final extended completion date while undertaking to arrange re-housing.
6. The respondent was therefore entitled to summary judgment for specific performance. The court also concluded that the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success, so the application to appeal out of time could not succeed.

• High Court (Chancery Division): Deputy Master Hoffman granted summary judgment for specific performance on 9 May 2005, refused an adjournment and directed completion.
• High Court (Chancery Division): Mr Justice Kitchin dismissed the applications for an extension of time and permission to appeal.