JT v RL & Anor

On an application for strike out or summary judgment, the court considers the claim as pleaded and assumes the pleaded facts in the claimant’s favour, while disregarding disputed evidence. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no real prospect of success and no compelling reason for trial.

The objective intention to create legal relations depends on the whole context. Commercial authorities concerning letters of intent do not determine whether an agreement made between parents during family litigation is binding. An agreement cannot oust the court’s jurisdiction to make financial provision for a child. A proprietary estoppel claim requires a viable assurance or representation, reliance and detriment.

The claimant, the mother of the parties’ child, brought proceedings seeking a declaration that the defendants held a property for her as life tenant, together with damages for alleged breach of a letter of intent. The proceedings were issued in the Chancery Division and later transferred to the Family Division to be heard alongside family proceedings concerning the child.

The first defendant applied to strike out the claim and sought summary judgment on his counterclaim for a declaration that the letter of intent was ineffective. The central issues were whether the letter created an enforceable contract, whether it impermissibly purported to supersede or oust the court’s jurisdiction to provide financially for the child, and whether the claimant’s proprietary estoppel claim had a realistic prospect of success.

1. Applications allowed. The claimant’s claim was struck out and judgment was entered for the first defendant on the counterclaim.

2. The court applied the strike-out and summary-judgment principles in the Easyair case, approved by the Court of Appeal in AC Ward. The pleaded case and supporting evidence were considered, without resolving disputed factual issues. The claimant’s case had to show a real or realistic prospect of success, and no compelling reason for a trial existed.

3. The intention to create legal relations was assessed objectively, with the whole context being important, applying the approach in Edmonds. Authorities concerning commercial letters of intent established that such instruments can sometimes be binding, but they did not decide the present issue. The letter was negotiated by parents amid continuing proceedings and orders concerning the child’s care and financial provision, without independent legal advice.

4. The wording that the letter was binding but without prejudice until implemented, coupled with the fact that it had not been implemented, supported the conclusion that no binding and enforceable contract had been created. The subsequent conduct and the agreed documents also indicated that the intended provision for the child was to be incorporated into a court order.

5. Applying Hyman, an agreement could not, insofar as it concerned financial provision for the child, oust the court’s jurisdiction to make such orders. This provided an additional reason why the alleged supersession of the existing financial arrangements order could not have the asserted legal effect.

6. The proprietary estoppel claim had no reasonable prospect of success. There was no sufficient assurance that the claimant would receive a life interest, no evidence of reliance when she moved into the property, and no evidence of detriment.