Tandem Properties Ltd v Sheffield City Council

On an application for strike out or summary judgment, the court must distinguish legal sufficiency from the evidential merits of the claim. Strike out is appropriate only where the pleaded case discloses no recognised cause of action. Summary judgment requires both no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason for trial; fact-sensitive disputes and issues requiring fuller investigation ordinarily should proceed to trial.

A claim under article 1 of Protocol 1 may be arguable without establishing de facto expropriation. Private nuisance requires substantial interference with property rights or amenity, while public nuisance requires the prescribed public injury and, for a private claimant, particular damage that is direct and substantial.

Tandem owned a former Salvation Army Citadel within a proposed Sheffield city-centre redevelopment scheme. It alleged that Sheffield City Council induced its withdrawal of opposition to a compulsory purchase order by misrepresentations concerning the proposed relocation of John Lewis as anchor tenant. It also alleged breach of fiduciary obligations, infringement of article 1 of Protocol 1, and private and public nuisance.

The Council applied to strike out or obtain summary judgment on most of the claim. The fiduciary-obligations claim was accepted to require trial. The principal issues were whether the pleaded causes of action were legally sustainable, whether the claims were time-barred, whether limitation could be postponed or extended, and whether the property-rights and nuisance allegations had real prospects of success.

1. Disposition. The private and public nuisance claims were struck out. The remainder of the Council’s application was dismissed. A costs and case management conference was directed.
2. Strike out and summary judgment. Strike out under CPR r.3.4(2)(a) concerns whether the pleading, assumed to be true, discloses a cause of action known to law. CPR r.24.2 requires no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason for trial. The misrepresentation and negligent-misstatement limitation issues involved overlapping facts with the fiduciary and contractual allegations. That provided a compelling reason for trial, and Tandem also had real prospects on deliberate concealment and reasonable diligence under s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980.
3. Article 1 of Protocol 1. The pleaded case was not confined to de facto expropriation. Although Tandem retained ownership, restrictions on its use of the Citadel made interference with its Convention rights more than merely arguable. The proportionality issue was highly fact-sensitive and could not properly be resolved on the evidence available. Tandem also had real prospects of obtaining an equitable extension under s.7(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998, despite the substantial delay.
4. Nuisance. The alleged failure to progress or abandonment of the redevelopment scheme did not substantially interfere with Tandem’s use or enjoyment of the Citadel and disclosed no private nuisance. The allegations also did not amount to the public injury required for public nuisance, nor did they plead direct and substantial particular damage.