Abbotsley Limited & Anor v Pheasantland Limited & Ors

At the end of the 19 days of evidence in this trial, it was raised by Counsel for the first defendant that, as a consequence of the many difficulties that had occurred during the course of the trial, including with respect to deficiencies in the disclosure undertaken by Ms Saunders and her attempts to mislead the court, it was not possible for the defendants to be given a fair trial and in the circumstances the first defendant would be applying to strike out the claims in both cases.

This was plainly a highly unusual step to take. The evidence was near complete after what had been an extremely difficult trial for the participants, including the lawyers, and an extraordinarily expensive trial in terms of time for the court and costs for the parties. The parties plainly needed resolution.

I made it clear that, while I would hear the application, I would be determining the issues on the basis of the evidence I had heard and the law that applied. That is necessary as, even if I found in favour of the application, the parties need to have answers with respect to the areas of dispute. Further, if I find for the first defendant on its application to strike out, but that was overturned on an appeal, then it was plainly necessary to have the court’s judgment on this extremely time consuming and expensive litigation. My findings on the evidence and determination on the various issues are contained in a separate judgment which is extremely lengthy, more than six times the length of a judgment I would normally give after a significant or complex case. I have explained in that judgment the reasons why.

Having mentioned the possibility of such an application in open court, the application was formally made on 13 June 2025 to strike out both claims and to award costs on an indemnity basis, this application to be dealt with at the same time as the judgment. Counsel for the first defendant relies upon the witness statement of Juliet Schalker, a partner at his instructing solicitors Debenhams Ottaway LLP, dated 13 June 2025 in support of the application. Ms Schalker has supervision of the solicitor with conduct of the case for the first defendant and she sets out in her statement the chronology of the litigation and the difficulties there have been with disclosure. I will not repeat that statement in full, but summarise what she says. Counsel for the claimants have responded in writing to the submissions made on behalf of the first defendant.

The first set of proceedings were issued by Ms Saunders on behalf of herself and Abbotsley Limited (“Abbotsley”) on 1 December 2022, with particulars of claim dated 21 December 2022. This first set of proceedings allege, in summary, trespass on the Abbotsley water supply, trespass on Abbotsley land including the Jenny Wisson wood, and harassment.

The second set of proceedings were brought on 22 May 2023 against Pheasantland Limited for forfeiture of the Lease of the “chalet land” entered into in 2003.

In an attempt to keep control over this litigation I acceded to the application of Pheasantland to consolidate the proceedings, but dispensed with the need for further pleadings given the stage the proceedings had reached by the time of the consolidation.

At a directions hearing on 31 May 2023, which included listing this matter for an Early Neutral Evaluation before a property Recorder, the parties were ordered to carry out standard disclosure by list by no later than 4pm on 21 June 2023. The disclosure on the part of the claimants was limited to 136 documents. Ms Saunders, the second Defendant, who had retired from being a solicitor more than 35 years before carrying out the disclosure exercise on her behalf and on behalf of the first claimant, Abbotsley. The court had indicated that she was likely to benefit from instructing solicitors, given her ability and willingness to spend very large sums of money on leading and junior counsel, but she was determined to do that work herself despite her lack of recent, or any significant, litigation experience. The court cannot force a party to instruct solicitors if they decide they wish to act in person but it is very unusual for someone to not instruct solicitors but then instruct expensive counsel. It indicates a desire to control the underlying framework of the litigation and has the impact of avoiding the oversight a solicitor would bring to a case in fulfilment of their own professional obligations. In this case, it meant that disclosure was not undertaken as it ought to have been.

Ms Schalker has set out in her statement that Pheasantland was surprised about the lack of disclosure given the nature of the dispute and the manner in which Ms Saunders creates copious amounts of documentation and records everything in writing. On 16 June 2023, Debenhams Ottaway LLP sent a 3 page letter to Abbotsley and Ms Saunders setting out what standard disclosure entails and referring to documentation that they would be expecting to see – for example documentation with Wilsons relating to the grant of the Lease to Luddington (acknowledging that some of that documentation might be privileged), documentation that employees might hold, documents relating to American Golf, documents between Abbotsley or Ms Saunders and Luddington, documents relating to the “discrete oral contract” pleaded in the particulars of claim, documents relating to the assignment of the Lease from Luddington to Norwegian Log Chalets Limited, documents relating to the assignment of the Lease from Norwegian Log Chalets Limited to PI Estates, other documents held by third parties, and any documents relating to the Lease. I am not repeating the full contents of that letter, but it is clear that the solicitors had very real concerns that there were gaping holes in the disclosure that Ms Saunders had provided.

Ms Saunders responded in detail by her letter dated 19 June 2023 setting out that she had complied with her disclosure obligations, that some documents were old and deteriorated and some were on “floppy discs” which could no longer be read. She said that she thought the correspondence with the solicitors was “advice privileged” but she had reviewed the documents she had in the filing cabinets, specifically with respect to Land Registry issues, and she attached an amended disclosure list including overage payment details and ground rent calculations. She also alleged that the first defendant had failed to comply with its disclosure obligations and that Robert Verdier (the owner of lodge 10 Abbotsley Country Homes and a friend and supporter of Ms Saunders) had sent a bundle of documents which she believed Pheasantland ought to have disclosed. Again, the full contents of that letter are not being cited here but I have read the full contents and taken them into account. Ms Saunders attached an updated list with 165 documents. It is clear from reading that letter that the position of Ms Saunders at that time was that there was no further outstanding disclosure, the clear implication being that all documents that ought to be disclosed had been disclosed.

Ms Saunders alleged in response that the disclosure on behalf of Pheasantland was “woefully lacking”. Ms Saunders had disclosed, on the second occasion, a total of 165 documents. Pheasantland, which had a much shorter involvement with the “chalet land” than Ms Saunders and Abbotsley, disclosed 1819 pages of documents and further, approximately 700, photographs and video clips. On the face of those figures, there is a considerable imbalance in disclosure and the parties which have the greatest involvement and for a much longer period, namely Abbotsley and Ms Saunders, disclosed much less.

Despite Pheasantland disclosing further documents, amounting to nearly 9,000 pages and carrying out a search of documents using the words “water” and “supply”, Ms Schalker says that Ms Saunders continued to complain. At the same time, she says that Abbotsley/Ms Saunders failed to disclose anything like the same amount of documentation, despite having been involved in the negotiations for the lease, the Lease itself and all other documentation relating to the supply of water. There were further documents relating to the water dispute which Ms Saunders chose to disclose to Mr Warren and Mr Brindley, as occupiers of the cottages but not to Pheasantland.

With respect to the second, forfeiture, claim against Pheasantland, the directions provided for disclosure by list by 28 January 2025. The order, dated 15 January 2025, set out what needed to be disclosed.

The evidence of Ms Schalker provides that Pheasantland’s disclosure list was 21 pages in length. On 13 February 2025, Ms Saunders/Abbotsley were asked for disclosure of any redevelopment plans. Further disclosure was provided by Ms Saunders/Abbotsley on 21 March and 24 March and 27 March 2025. At the pre-trial review on 1 April 2025, Ms Saunders was ordered to provide a statement explaining the late disclosure of documentation by 11 April. Further disclosure was provided on 3 April 2025 and a witness statement was provided by Ms Saunders on 15 April 2025.

In the disclosure that took place on 24 March 2025, nearly two months after it should have taken place, Ms Saunders disclosed for the first time that Mr and Mrs McDermott, the owners of lodge 1 at Abbotsley Country Homes, had instructed solicitors to respond to the claim for forfeiture back in 2023. In Ms Saunders’ witness statement she said that she had only thought about considering the point after seeing the witness statement of Mr and Mrs McDermott. In my judgment this shows, at the very least, a woeful lack of understanding of what is needed when undertaking disclosure. Ms Saunders’ lack of understanding and/or willingness not to comply with the duties of disclosure was highlighted in her own witness statement where she said:

“ I know that I have been criticised for not having solicitors on board to deal with disclosure. However, the disclosure process is only as good as the information provided by a client to a solicitor. Had we had solicitors instructed in the case I would not have thought to provide this document.”

This completely misunderstands the duties of disclosure and the duties of a solicitor. A solicitor would ensure that proper searches would be carried out, and documents disclosed, in order that those documents could be considered during the trial, and evidence called and tested. It is an essential part of the trial process to enable parties to know the case that they have to meet and that the court can make decisions confident that all available evidence is before the court.

Further disclosure was provided by Ms Saunders on 5 May 2025 and, during the trial, Ms Saunders continued to reference documents that had not been disclosed. During the evening of 3 June 2025, immediately before Mr Walker a director of Pheasantland and the individual against whom Ms Saunders has the greatest complaint, was due to give evidence, Ms Saunders provided yet further disclosure. Subsequent to the closure of evidence and final written and oral submissions being given on her behalf, Ms Saunders instructed her counsel that she had sold the defunct hotel and sports complex for development and that would alter the situation with respect to the supply of water. Leading counsel was placed in the embarrassing situation that she had to address the court in the middle of closing submissions being made on behalf of Pheasantland to inform that there had been a further failure to disclose documents that ought to have been disclosed. A direction was made for Ms Saunders to provide that further disclosure with respect to the sale of the hotel and sports complex. Unfortunately, Ms Saunders has misinterpreted that direction as being a justification to create further documentation to “disclose” after evidence has finished and closing submissions have been made. Despite an order being made on 18 August 2025 that she desist from that behaviour, Ms Saunders has persisted in creating and providing further documentation, entirely ignoring the fact that she is putting before the court new evidence which the defendants did not have opportunity to consider before the trial, challenge during trial, or adduce their own evidence during the trial. The concern expressed by Pheasantland is that it is impossible to have a fair trial given the seriousness of Ms Saunders’ various failures. Certainly, it appears that she has no understanding of the litigation process, the civil procedure rules, or that there are other parties involved in this litigation who also need to be treated fairly.

In addition to the failures in disclosure, Pheasantland rely upon Ms Saunders’ behaviour and evidence before the court to establish that she has deliberately sought to mislead the court.

There are, in my judgment, clear incidents when Ms Saunders has deliberately given evidence which is untrue and which she knew to be untrue. In the main judgment in this case I deal in detail with occasions where I find that Ms Saunders has been endeavouring to mislead the court. In particular, for the reasons set out in that judgment, with respect to the supply of water and the public access to the Jenny Wisson wood.

These are some other clear occasions when Ms Saunders has sought to convey one scenario, when the true situation is something else.

Over the trial, with 19 days of evidence and the various communications that have been received from Ms Saunders, including after the evidence was closed, it is clear that Ms Saunders is simply unable to accept certain facts. She seems to believe that if she continues to repeat a certain narrative, regardless of whether it has any basis in truth, then others will have to accept it.

Examples of this include:

Ms Saunders has shown a complete lack of empathy for the individual defendants who have been trapped into this litigation because Ms Saunders will not accept that (1) she may be wrong and (2) others are entitled to stand up to her and disagree with her views. When asked directly whether she had any regrets about this litigation she said “no I don’t, no” On the other hand, she became extremely emotional both when it transpired that her witness, Mr Robert Verdier, did not accept his second statement, and when mentioning Jenny Wisson.

Ms Saunders revealed her motivation in cutting off the water to the lodge owners, was to “chivvy them along” in order to force the first defendant to do what she wants. On 30 July 2022 she is recorded on dashcam footage as she shouts across “Well, wait till you got no water, because, you don’t, you haven’t won this case I can tell you.”

Her absolute determination to get the outcome she wanted, regardless of whether she was correct or not, meant that she turned off the water supply on 23 May 2020, 18 November 2020, 24 January 2022, 24 February 2022, and 5 May 2022. She then damaged the pipework on 17 May 2022, alleging (wrongly) that it could not be reinstated; and then on 16 July 2022, when there was a red warning “risk to life” warning in place as the temperatures neared 40 degrees Celsius, Simon Jefferies and James Bradbury were instructed by Ms Saunders to “investigate” the trespass pipe which resulted in it being damaged and the water supply to the lodges being cut off for 10 days. This was particularly dangerous as, among the residents, were elderly and vulnerable individuals who were left without water during a dangerously hot period.

The first defendant contends that the behaviour of Ms Saunders in this litigation supports a conclusion that she will do anything to win, and will not accept evidence against her – even if it is incontrovertible. For reasons I set out in the main judgment I have been compelled to reach the sad conclusion that she has deliberately set out to mislead the court, setting out a narrative that is simply untrue and putting forward arguments that I find she must have known to be untrue.

I have also been compelled to reach the sad conclusion that Ms Saunders did not instruct solicitors to act for her in this litigation as she wanted to retain control over the issues in the case and, in particular, wished to control the disclosure of documents. As a former solicitor she understands, or should understand, disclosure obligations and she knows that any solicitors instructed would supervise a reasonable search. She is very familiar with instructing solicitors in other contexts. Ms Saunders said that she had six filing cabinets of documents held within what she referred to as “the Fred West cellar”. Not only was that part of her evidence in shockingly bad taste, and another indication that she is an individual who lacks empathy or feeling for others, but it shows just how poor her disclosure has been. It is a fundamental of the adversarial system of litigation that there must be openness in the disclosure of documents and in Square Global Limited v Leonard [2020] EWHC 1008, it was set out that:

“The client should not be allowed to decide relevance – or even potential relevance – for himself, so either the client must send all the files to the solicitor, or the solicitor must visit the client to review the files and take the relevant documents into his passion. It is then for the solicitor to decide which documents are relevant and disclosable”

Contrary to her obligations to disclose, not only has there been partial disclosure but there has been late disclosure of documents when it has suited Ms Saunders to adduce that evidence. The fundamental problem with disclosure not being dealt with in accordance with the civil procedure rules is that the other parties do not have an opportunity to consider the documentation in detail so that there can be appropriate investigation and response.

This case has taken a great deal of court time and an enormous effort to unravel. It has been important to go through every issue with great care and also to record the evidence of the participants in detail in order that there can be no misinterpretation. All of that has created a disproportionate burden on the court’s resources.

The first defendant’s counsel has acknowledged in his submissions with respect to the strike out application that there is no analogous case to this (or at least none that has been reported). I am not surprised. I have certainly never been involved in a case such as this – either in practice or as a judge.

He refers to the approval of the Supreme Court in Summers v Fairclough Homes Limited [2012] UKSC 26 where Lord Clarke, delivering the judgment of the court, affirmed the court’s “power to strike out the whole or part statement of case at whatever state it is made, even if it is made at the end of the trial …” but also making it clear that “the draconian step of striking out is always a last resort.”

Ultimately, having heard 20 days of evidence and oral submissions, and considering very lengthy written submissions, I am able to reach conclusions with respect to the construction of the agreements entered into by Ms Saunders. I have also been able to reach conclusions on the basis of the evidence presented. Despite the apparent assumption on behalf of the claimant that the court will consider her claim on the basis of an unpleaded case, I have reached my decisions on the basis of the case, and the numerous issues, properly put before the court. Repetition of submissions has not assisted me, and has not made a weak case stronger.

Consequently, while this has been a highly unusual case in so many respects, and has led me to write a judgment which is considerably longer than I would normally write, I have been able to reach conclusions and a fair trial has been possible. The second claimant, on behalf of herself and the first claimant, and all the defendants, have been able to present the various strands of their cases in full detail before the court. There is an extraordinary submission made in writing by leading counsel for the second claimant that the second claimant’s article 6 rights have somehow been infringed. The background is that in response to an allegation made against him of anti-social behaviour, the eighth defendant, Darren Honeywill, played dashcam footage from the second claimant’s own car recording how the second claimant drove her car towards him causing him to have to jump off the access road (over which he had a right of way). Her own dashcam footage recorded her attitude and language towards him some of the other defendants “… you scumbag… you vicious scumbag … your evil father … burn down the whole gypsy place … you stupid bitch…”. I am sure that counsel will have explained to the second claimant that, when making allegations, it can be expected that evidence may be called to rebut those allegations. The fact that happens is not an infringement of article 6 rights. While Ms Saunders may have not wanted the court to see that footage, in the same way as the court did not view the dashcam footage which led to her conviction for assault against Ms Beresford Ambridge, the court does have a duty to consider evidence from both sides in order to understand whether allegations are properly made out.

In the circumstances therefore, while I understand why the first defendant made this application, I am not going to grant it. The issues raised are matters that needed to be dealt with in any event and therefore I do not consider that any costs will arise from this application and its refusal, however I will of course hear submissions on that point.