A Supreme Court judge has found that Motorpark acted unconscionably towards Ace Autobody by encouraging the company to move into a Body Shop premises on assurances that a ten-year lease had effectively been agreed.
In a judgment delivered on 18 February 2026, Mr Justice Woulfe agreed with the majority that no concluded agreement for a ten-year lease existed and that the separate issue of enforcing such an agreement through part performance therefore did not arise.
He differed, however, on proprietary estoppel — an equitable doctrine which can provide a remedy where one party reasonably relies to its detriment on another party’s assurances.
Ace’s general manager, Robin Sutton, gave evidence that Motorpark managing director Michael Barry told him in December 2016 that the lease was agreed and would be sorted out, while encouraging Ace to move in. Similar assurances were later attributed to Motorpark group general manager Colin Barry.
Mr Justice Woulfe regarded those assurances as clear rather than vague. He said they could reasonably have been understood as meaning that the proposed ten-year lease would be granted. He also considered the wider context important: Motorpark wanted to transfer its body-repair operation and four employees to Ace, while work on the lease had effectively stopped.
The judge found overwhelming evidence that Ace relied on those assurances and incurred substantial expenditure at the premises, as well as taking on the four employees.
Despite finding proprietary estoppel established, Mr Justice Woulfe agreed that no further monetary assessment was necessary. By the time of the Supreme Court decision, Ace had occupied the Body Shop for nine years and was also, on the judgment’s account, prima facie entitled to seek a new tenancy under landlord-and-tenant legislation.
This is Mr Justice Woulfe’s separate judgment. He expressly differed in part from the Supreme Court majority on proprietary estoppel, so the final majority disposition must be read with the companion judgment of Mr Justice Collins.