De Crittenden v Estate of Bayliss (Deceased) & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 547 (25 April 2005)

De Crittenden v Estate of Bayliss (Deceased) & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 547 (25 April 2005)

Permission to appeal against the order dismissing the second action is granted as the issues of abuse of process/election and existence of fiduciary duties are arguable and merit consideration by a full Court of Appeal. Permission to appeal the refusal to amend the claim regarding the £75,000 is adjourned to be heard with the substantive appeal. Permission to appeal the refusal to amend regarding the plant is refused as the claim has no real prospect of success.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 547
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Robin de Crittenden; Defendant/respondent: The Estate of Charles Albert Bayliss (Deceased); Defendant/respondent: Lesley Anne Bayliss
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Technology and Construction Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal against the order dated 17 January 2005 granted; permission to appeal refusal to amend regarding £75,000 adjourned; permission to appeal refusal to amend regarding plant refused.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Election of Remedies, Fiduciary Duties, Tracing Claims, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Contract Law Abuse of Process Election of Remedies Fiduciary Duties Tracing Claims Amendment of Pleadings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin de Crittenden

Claimant/applicant

The Estate of Charles Albert Bayliss (Deceased)

Defendant/respondent

Lesley Anne Bayliss

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Technology and Construction Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second action was an abuse of process due to election of remedies in the first action
  2. 2 Whether the relationship between the applicant and Mr Bayliss gave rise to fiduciary duties supporting a proprietary/tracing claim
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing permission to amend the Particulars of Claim

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal against the order dismissing the second action is granted as the issues of abuse of process/election and existence of fiduciary duties are arguable and merit consideration by a full Court of Appeal. Permission to appeal the refusal to amend the claim regarding the £75,000 is adjourned to be heard with the substantive appeal. Permission to appeal the refusal to amend regarding the plant is refused as the claim has no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal against the order dated 17 January 2005 granted; permission to appeal refusal to amend regarding £75,000 adjourned; permission to appeal refusal to amend regarding plant refused.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal against the order dated 17 January 2005 granted.
  • Application for permission to appeal refusal to amend paragraph 14 of the Particulars of Claim adjourned to be heard with the substantive appeal.