It may be ripe for development, or development may even just have started. Here, Countryside were developers of the land, but did not own it, and nor had they gone into occupation before the squatters. The Court decided they were not 'in possession' of the land, and so were not entitled to an order for possession. Relying on this promise Mr Gillett devoted much of his time and energies to the farm and business. However, when Mr Holt died he did not in fact leave the estate to Mr Gillett.
Contracts require consideration to be binding.
Under the legal doctrine of estoppel, promises can be binding too, even though there is no consideration. That is what happened here. Mr Gillett was therefore entitled to a part of the estate. Those in the property industry are probably more accustomed than most to seeing contracts in writing, and under seal. This case is a reminder that a binding commitment can be made without even a contract, and certainly no formalities.