Andrew Ralph v Jane Given

Summary judgment is inappropriate where competing factual accounts are closely interlinked and fuller investigation may affect the outcome. A claimant cannot obtain judgment merely by assuming factual disputes favour the defendant while disregarding parts of the defendant’s case. Where hire purchase prevents legal title to a vehicle passing by gift, the intended recipient may nevertheless have a real prospect of establishing an equitable assignment or trust of the hirer’s contractual rights. For deceit, a misrepresentation need only play a real and substantial part in inducing action; it need not be the sole or predominant inducement.

The claimant and defendant were former fiancés whose relationship ended before marriage. Their dispute concerned luxury vehicles, an engagement ring and related financial dealings. The claimant sought summary judgment and strike-out relief concerning an Aston Martin DBX, associated items and Range Rover claims. The defendant relied on alleged gifts, equitable assignment or trust, deceit and connected arrangements involving vehicles she owned and money she provided.

The central issue was whether the defendant’s claims and defences had no real prospect of success, and whether there was any other compelling reason for the issues to be disposed of without a trial.

1. Applications dismissed. The claimant’s applications for summary judgment, reverse summary judgment and strike out failed in their entirety. Consequential matters were adjourned pending an approved order.
2. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 24.2, the court must consider whether the relevant claim or defence has a real prospect of success and whether there is any other compelling reason for trial. It must avoid a mini-trial, consider evidence reasonably expected at trial and determine a short point of law summarily only where the evidence is sufficient.
3. The claimant’s broad concession that factual conflicts should be resolved for the defendant did not remove the need to examine the precise scope of the concession. The disputes were interlocking, and partial summary judgment risked producing assumptions inconsistent with evidence at trial. That constituted a compelling reason for trial.
4. Assuming the defendant’s case, an outright gift of the DBX could not readily be inferred if hire purchase meant that title remained with the finance company. The defendant nevertheless had a real prospect of establishing an equitable assignment of the hire-purchase rights or a trust, including on the basis of consideration arising from connected dealings.
5. The reasoning in Spellman v Spellman was distinguishable because the present relationship, dealings, financial circumstances and evidence of intention were materially different. The defendant also had a real prospect of defending possession and wrongful-interference claims on the basis that the claimant had conferred at least a possessory entitlement which he could not simply withdraw.
6. For deceit, the alleged representation need only be a real and substantial part of the inducement. It need not be the sole or predominant reason for the defendant’s conduct: Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms and others.