Abbotsley Limted v Pheasantland Limited

Summary possession, summary judgment and strike-out procedures should not be used to determine a complex forfeiture claim requiring factual investigation. Under CPR 55.8, the court may decide a possession claim at the first hearing or an adjournment, but may give case-management directions where the claim is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds. The summary-judgment threshold requires a realistic, rather than fanciful, prospect of success, and the court must avoid a mini-trial while considering evidence reasonably available at trial. A case may properly be directed to trial where disputed breaches, waiver, relief from forfeiture and conflicting evidence require fuller examination. A defence should not be struck out where it answers the pleaded allegations and discloses reasonable grounds for defending the claim.

Abbotsley appealed against District Judge Falvey’s refusal of its three-part application for early determination of a forfeiture claim concerning leasehold chalet land. It sought possession under CPR 55.8, summary judgment under CPR Part 24, and strike-out of the defence under CPR 3.4.

The District Judge had directed the matter towards trial after a detailed pleaded dispute concerning alleged breaches of the lease, including occupation, structures, use, insurance, nuisance, trespass and related matters. He later supplied additional reasons. The central issues were whether the summary possession procedure remained available, whether the claim could be summarily determined, whether the land included residential premises, and whether the defence disclosed reasonable grounds.

1. Appeal and early determination. The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to refuse the applications for summary possession, summary judgment and strike-out. The appeal was by way of review, not rehearing.
2. CPR 55.8. The hearing fixed under CPR 55.5 had taken place in October 2023. At that hearing the District Judge gave case-management directions rather than simply adjourning the possession hearing. The opportunity to obtain summary possession under CPR 55.8 was therefore lost. In any event, even if the later hearing could be treated as a CPR 55.8 hearing, the detailed allegations and pleaded defences gave Pheasantland more than a fanciful prospect of success. The District Judge was also entitled, under the overriding objective, to direct allocation rather than attempt summary determination.
3. Summary judgment. The principles in Global 100 Ltd v Laleva, Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd and the authorities there summarised required a realistic prospect of success to be assessed without conducting a mini-trial. The court had to consider evidence already available and evidence reasonably expected at trial. The alleged breaches and answers to them raised complex factual issues, including waiver, remedy, liability for predecessors’ breaches and relief from forfeiture. Those matters required disclosure, witness evidence and cross-examination.
4. Residential premises. The lease permitted holiday and second-home residential accommodation in chalets. The land therefore included residential premises for CPR 24.2(b), so the summary-judgment exclusion applied. The fact that permanent occupation was prohibited did not alter that conclusion.
5. Strike-out. On a strike-out application the pleaded facts are generally assumed to be accurate unless contradictory or obviously wrong. The defence addressed the particular allegations, disclosed reasonable grounds for defending the claim and was not an abuse of process. Strike-out was therefore bound to fail.
6. The failure of the early determination applications did not determine the merits at trial. An extension of time for a possible second appeal was refused.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division), [2025] EWHC 654 (KB): appeal against the District Judge’s refusal of summary possession, summary judgment and strike-out dismissed. Permission to appeal on ground 2 refused.
• Peterborough County Court, District Judge Falvey: applications under CPR 55.8 and CPR Part 24 refused on 19 June 2024, with additional reasons given on 18 July 2024. The claim was directed to proceed to trial.