Notes from hearing: Summary judgement 21/01/26- DJ Banks

Case Background

A hearing took place before Judge Banks concerning an application for summary judgment under CPR 24. The dispute involved an option agreement for the sale of a property, with multiple hearings since 2023. The claimant argued the option had been validly exercised and the defendant was bound to sell. The defendant disputed this on grounds including capacity, grief, unfairness and alleged breaches.Claimant Submission

• There was a valid agreement between the parties for the sale of the property.

• The option period had been extended by notice, and the claimant had exercised the option.

• Communications took place throughout the relevant dates.

• The defendant’s allegation that the claimant breached the contract was unsupported; there is no obligation to collect keys to complete a sale.

• The claimant argued the defendant had no real prospect of defending the claim (CPR 24.2).

• On capacity:

  • Defendant referred to alcoholism and medical issues, but

  • There was no expert evidence, no GP finding of lack of capacity,

  • Under MCA 2005 s.2–3, capacity is presumed unless proved otherwise.

  • Defendant’s own evidence showed they agreed to the contract.

• On breach:

  • The contract was clear, with objective interpretation.

  • No basis for breach existed.

• Relief:

  • Claimant sought specific performance, supported by valuation (£234,500).

  • If not, damages in lieu.

Defendant Submission

• Defendant was grieving the deaths of his mother and wife, and suffering from alcoholism.

• They did not remember the contract and believed they were being scammed.

• Said the property was advertised online without their understanding.

• Claimed valuation was wrong and that the property was listed as three bedrooms but one room did not meet building‑regulation requirements, so should be considered two.

• Said they had no intention to sell their home and believed they were preyed upon as a vulnerable person.

• Disputed the sale price (£170,000) and questioned why the claimant did not complete the sale properly (e.g., keys not collected).

Judge’s Findings

• The application for summary judgment (dated 12 December 2023) required considering whether the defendant had a real prospect of success.

• Capacity:

  • Medical letters provided did not address capacity at the time of the contract.

  • No evidence of incapacity in 2021.

  • Presumption of capacity applies.

  • No evidence the claimant knew of any incapacity.

• Breach of contract:

  • Unclear what breach was alleged.

  • Claimant had the contractual right to exercise the option; once exercised, it became a contract for sale.

  • The only breach visible was defendant not completing the sale.

• Exercise of option:

  • The extension notices and exercise notice were valid.

  • Defendant was bound to sell for £170,000.

• Outcome:

  • Defendant showed no real prospect of defending any of the issues.

  • Summary judgment granted.

  • Specific performance ordered requiring the sale to proceed.

Costs

• The claimant submitted cost schedules covering four hearings since 2023.

• Defendant argued he should not pay due to the claimant’s conduct and their own lack of income.

• Original costs (~£30,000) were considered excessive due to duplication and the straightforward nature of the matter.

• Judge reassessed the schedule and reduced costs to £15,500 plus VAT (~£18,000).

• Costs to be deducted from the sale proceeds.