Mobolaji Olunbunmi Agoro v Oluwatoyin Adigun-Harris

Summary judgment may be granted where a claim has no realistic prospect of success, but the court must avoid conducting a mini-trial. In fraud cases, caution is required, although fraud claims may be determined summarily where the circumstances justify it. Allegations occurring after an agreement do not necessarily establish that the representor acted dishonestly when the agreement was made, particularly where the agreement was partly performed. A contractual construction issue should ordinarily proceed to trial where the court lacks sufficient evidence of the relevant factual matrix and the claim has a real prospect of success. Defective pleading of causation or damage may be cured by amendment where justice and the overriding objective favour that course.

The claimants sought rescission of, or damages arising from, a 2005 Tomlin order and settlement agreement concerning several properties. They alleged that the deceased had fraudulently represented that she intended to comply with the agreement and had subsequently breached it. They also claimed damages for contractual and trust breaches concerning the sale of 16 Ogunlesi Street.

The defendant applied for summary judgment or strike out. The issues included whether the pleaded facts could establish dishonest intention in 2005, whether the contractual claim concerning sale proceeds had a real prospect of success, whether the trust claim should be dismissed, and whether limitation or affirmation barred rescission.

1. Fraud claim. The court granted summary judgment against the claim based on alleged dishonest intention never to perform the settlement agreement. The pleaded matters, even if proved, were consistent with honesty when the agreement was made. The deceased’s part performance was wholly inconsistent with an original intention never to be bound. The court would also have struck out the claim because the particulars disclosed no reasonable grounds.
2. The court accepted that fraud claims can in principle be summarily determined, subject to caution. The pleaded allegations required close scrutiny, but the court had to consider whether they had a realistic prospect of establishing dishonesty rather than merely whether the underlying events might be proved.
3. Contract claim. The settlement agreement contained a lacuna concerning the destination of sale proceeds if 16 Ogunlesi Street were sold during the deceased’s lifetime. The court could not resolve the issue without fuller evidence of the factual matrix. The claimants’ construction had a real prospect of success, so summary judgment and strike out were refused. The pleading was defective because causation and damage were not properly stated, but permission was granted to amend.
4. Trust claim. The defendant did not seek summary judgment on the trust-based claims, and there was no basis for striking them out of the court’s own motion.
5. Limitation and rescission. The court did not decide these issues as independent grounds because the fraud claim had already failed. It observed that the claimants had a real prospect of establishing postponement under Limitation Act 1980, s 32, and of showing that they discovered the relevant facts over time, so neither defence would independently have justified summary judgment.
6. The application therefore succeeded only on the fraud claim. The claimants were permitted to amend the surviving contractual claim, and the application was otherwise dismissed. The parties were directed to agree a timetable for the amended particulars and defence.