Windsor-Cliv & Ors v Rees

Windsor-Cliv & Ors v Rees

The estoppel claim could have been raised in arbitration but the court is not satisfied it should have been; the defence and Part 20 claim are not so vague as to disclose no reasonable grounds for defending the possession claim; however, failure to pay costs orders in closely related proceedings justifies an unless order that the defence and Part 20 claim be struck out if instalments are not paid.

Parties
Claimant: The Right Honourable Ivor Edward Other Windsor-Clive, Earl of Plymouth; Claimant: Lady Emma Windsor-Clive; Claimant: The Honourable David Justin Windsor-Clive; Defendant: Jenkin Thomas Rees
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Possession Claim / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence and Part 20 Claim
Outcome
Unless order made: defence and Part 20 claim to be struck out if Mr Rees fails to pay £100,000 in monthly instalments of £10,000.
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Estoppel, Arbitration, Costs Orders, Abuse of Process
Property Law Agricultural Tenancy Civil Procedure Possession Proceedings Estoppel Arbitration Costs Orders Abuse of Process

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Right Honourable Ivor Edward Other Windsor-Clive, Earl of Plymouth

Claimant

Lady Emma Windsor-Clive

Claimant

The Honourable David Justin Windsor-Clive

Claimant

Jenkin Thomas Rees

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession Claim / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence and Part 20 Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence and Part 20 claim should be struck out as abuse of process for not being raised in arbitration
  2. 2 Whether the defence and Part 20 claim disclose reasonable grounds for defending the possession claim
  3. 3 Whether failure to comply with costs orders justifies striking out the defence and Part 20 claim

Ratio Decidendi

The estoppel claim could have been raised in arbitration but the court is not satisfied it should have been; the defence and Part 20 claim are not so vague as to disclose no reasonable grounds for defending the possession claim; however, failure to pay costs orders in closely related proceedings justifies an unless order that the defence and Part 20 claim be struck out if instalments are not paid.

Court Disposition

Unless order made: defence and Part 20 claim to be struck out if Mr Rees fails to pay £100,000 in monthly instalments of £10,000.

Orders

  • Unless Mr Rees pays £100,000 in monthly instalments of £10,000, the defence and Part 20 claim shall stand struck out upon default of any instalment.
  • Parties to submit draft order within 14 days of judgment.