On 17 March 2025, in the latest round of the Abbotsley litigation, the High Court dismissed all three grounds of the appeal brought by Abbotsley. It had made an application under CPR 55.8, as well as for summary judgment and strike-out relating to a forfeiture claim for land which includes a number of wooden chalets in Cambridgeshire. All three limbs were dismissed at first instance.

The High Court found that by adjourning the first hearing, the Claimant could not come within CPR 55.8 and in the alternative the Judge had been correct to exercise his case management discretion and not decide the case on that day. This ground was found to be without merit.

Second, it was found that CPR 24 could not apply because the land contains residential premises. Interestingly, the High Court found that the notes to CPR 24.2.2 in the White Book (that the derogation only applies to tenants whose occupancy is protected within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977 or Housing Act 1988) does not appear to accord with the words of CPR 24.2.

Thirdly, relating to strike out, the High Court found that Pheasantland is doing nothing more than defending its position and doing so in a proper way.

The trial remains listed for April.

The judgment is available here.