Walton Family Ltd & Ors v Estates GJD Services Ltd & Ors

For summary judgment, the court asks whether the opposing case has a realistic, rather than fanciful, prospect of success and whether any other compelling reason requires a trial. It may analyse witness evidence without conducting a mini-trial where the pleaded case and contemporaneous material cannot establish a viable defence.

A licensee with a contractual right to occupy land may sue a trespasser to vindicate that right, even before entering into de facto possession. A landowner or occupier who lawfully retains unlawfully parked goods may become an involuntary bailee. Under Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, the court may authorise sale where the bailee would be entitled to sell under section 12, even if notice requirements have not been fully satisfied. Reasonable notice depends on the circumstances.

The claimants sought removal of aircraft parked at an aerodrome and related parts and scrap. Their revised application sought summary judgment against Tristar Air LLC and Japan Sky Services K.K., together with authority to sell the aircraft in default of removal. They also sought default judgment against GJD Services Ltd.

The principal issues were whether Walton Family Estates Ltd had standing to sue in trespass, whether it was an involuntary bailee, whether the defendants had viable contractual licence, gratuitous licence or proprietary estoppel defences, and whether notices under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 were effective. The court also considered the proposed amendments to the defences.

1. Summary judgment. The court applied the principles summarised in [2014] 1 WLR 2006 and [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch). A case may be determined summarily where the evidence permits a short point of law or construction to be decided, but the court must not conduct a mini-trial. The proposed amended defences had to satisfy the same real-prospect test.
2. Standing in trespass. The lease gave Walton Family Estates Ltd a right to occupy the land on which the aircraft stood and access for their removal. That was sufficient to sue in trespass, applying Manchester Airport v Dutton [2000] QB 133. The other claimants did not obtain a similar right from the share purchase agreement. Damage to the reversionary interest was not established: the aircraft’s continued presence was not sufficiently permanent in the sense discussed in Jones v Llanrwst Urban District Council [1911] 1 Ch 393.
3. Involuntary bailment and sale. If the aircraft were unlawfully parked and no dispute remained concerning them, the first claimant could be an involuntary bailee. Section 13 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 allowed the court to authorise sale where the bailee would have been entitled to sell under section 12, even without a compliant section 12 notice. A bailor must ordinarily have a reasonable opportunity to collect the goods. Notices and their reasonableness depended on the surrounding facts.
4. Tristar Air. The 2019 notice was effective against Tristar Air because the oral licence had been granted for the benefit of the undisclosed owner and Tristar Air could not rely on the undisclosed assignment. The later notices also terminated any continuing licence. The pleaded estoppel or agreement had no real prospect of success. Summary judgment was granted, removal was ordered by 15 March 2021, and sale was authorised under section 13 in default.
5. Japan Sky Services. The proprietary estoppel defence failed because the alleged licence was personal rather than proprietary. The gratuitous licence defence failed because reasonable notice had been given. The alleged contractual licence was inadequately pleaded, unsupported by the contemporaneous evidence, uncertain in duration and consideration, and inconsistent with the parties’ conduct. The amendment was refused and equivalent removal and sale orders were made.
6. Default judgment. Default judgment was entered against GJD Services Ltd, including a declaration of ownership and removal and sale orders. The court granted summary judgment against Tristar Air and JSS and dismissed their applications to amend.