Triplark Limited v Bruce Maunder-Taylor

Summary judgment is unsuitable where the parties’ entitlement to rely on earlier judgments raises difficult questions about privity, admissibility, estoppel, abuse of process or the scope of a statutory trust.

A judgment in previous civil proceedings is generally conclusive only between the parties and their privies. Where the present claimant was not a party, and the earlier proceedings did not determine the alleged breach now relied upon, the opposing party may have a realistic prospect of raising further legal and factual defences. Issues involving a trustee’s possible relief from liability under the Trustee Act 1925 are fact-sensitive and ordinarily require trial.

Triplark, the freeholder and current trustee of service charge funds at Northwood Hall, brought consolidated Part 7 and Part 8 claims against Mr Maunder-Taylor, who had been the statutory manager under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

Triplark sought an account and reconstitution of the statutory trust, alleging that service charge funds had been wrongly applied. It relied on findings in earlier County Court, First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal proceedings concerning recoverability and reasonableness of service charge expenditure.

Triplark applied for summary judgment. Mr Maunder-Taylor applied to strike out the claims or obtain reverse summary judgment. The central issue was whether the earlier decisions conclusively established his liability, or were admissible and sufficient to dispose of the present claims summarily.

1. Applications dismissed. Both Triplark’s summary judgment application and Mr Maunder-Taylor’s counter-application were dismissed. Triplark’s separate strike-out application was not determined.
2. Under CPR r. 24.2, the court must ask whether the relevant claim or defence has a realistic rather than fanciful prospect of success, without conducting a mini-trial. The court must consider the evidence available on the application and evidence reasonably expected at trial. A short point of law may be decided summarily where the evidence is sufficient and the parties have had a proper opportunity to address it.
3. Under CPR r. 3.4(2), disputed factual issues ordinarily make strike out inappropriate unless the claim is certain to fail. The test is similar, but not identical, to summary judgment.
4. A final adjudication is conclusive between the parties and their privies as to matters necessarily determined. Judgments do not generally have that effect between strangers. Whether Triplark could rely on the earlier decisions as successor trustee, despite not being a party to them, raised real legal difficulty.
5. The earlier proceedings had not alleged or determined breach of trust under section 42 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Mr Maunder-Taylor therefore had a real prospect of arguing that the earlier orders did not establish breach of trust, and of relying on section 61 of the Trustee Act 1925, acquiescence or estoppel. Those matters were fact-sensitive and required trial.
6. The earlier County Court order was expressly not in rem, and the Upper Tribunal had stated that its decision did not affect Triplark’s rights. Triplark’s position that it was not bound by the earlier findings, while also asserting an entitlement to rely on them summarily, created further tension requiring determination at trial. The court left open whether re-arguing matters decided previously might constitute abuse of process.