Agreements entered into by the appellants did not constitute the grant of an option, following the appellants’ assertion that the agreements amounted to the giving of security for a loan. 

The first appellant (MK) had been building up a property portfolio alongside his day-to-day business of running a newsagents and general convenience store (his wife was the second appellant). In late 2013, MK was introduced to a property (CSF). The asking price of CSF was £5.8m. This was significantly more than any property previously purchased by the appellants. However, the selling agent led MK to believe that it would be relatively easy to remove certain agricultural covenants in place, and that CSF could then be sold on at a profit. MK viewed the acquisition of CSF as a short-term venture only. However, a deposit of £600,000 was required to exchange contracts on CSF, and the high street banks were not interested in lending for the purchase of CSF