Jesus Sanctuary Ministries Limited v Ruby Properties Limited

Jesus Sanctuary Ministries Limited v Ruby Properties Limited

The heads of terms (HOT22) were not legally binding as they were expressly subject to contract; the respondent's undertaking was time-limited and did not create enforceable rights for the appellant; no estoppel could arise from a subject to contract agreement; the trial judge's findings and procedure were correct; there was no real prospect of success on grounds one to nine of the appeal.

Parties
Appellant and Defendant: Jesus Sanctuary Ministries Limited; Respondent and Claimant: Ruby Properties Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Oral Renewal Application for Permission to Appeal; Application for Stay of Execution; Partial Appeal on Costs
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused on grounds one to nine; stay of execution of possession order lifted; stay of execution of costs order maintained pending resolution of ground 10; further directions given for costs appeal.
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Binding Nature of Heads of Terms, Subject to Contract, Estoppel, Undertakings, Costs Orders, Stay of Execution
Property Law Civil Procedure Possession Proceedings Binding Nature of Heads of Terms Subject to Contract Estoppel Undertakings Costs Orders +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jesus Sanctuary Ministries Limited

Appellant and Defendant

Ruby Properties Limited

Respondent and Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Oral Renewal Application for Permission to Appeal; Application for Stay of Execution; Partial Appeal on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether heads of terms (HOT22) were legally binding or subject to contract
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's undertaking created enforceable rights for the appellant
  3. 3 Whether estoppel could arise from a subject to contract agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The heads of terms (HOT22) were not legally binding as they were expressly subject to contract; the respondent's undertaking was time-limited and did not create enforceable rights for the appellant; no estoppel could arise from a subject to contract agreement; the trial judge's findings and procedure were correct; there was no real prospect of success on grounds one to nine of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused on grounds one to nine; stay of execution of possession order lifted; stay of execution of costs order maintained pending resolution of ground 10; further directions given for costs appeal.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal on grounds one to nine refused
  • Stay of execution of possession order lifted