Munday & Anor v Hilburn & Anor [2014] EWHC 4496 (Ch) (17 December 2014)

Munday & Anor v Hilburn & Anor [2014] EWHC 4496 (Ch) (17 December 2014)

There was no abuse of process because the defendants failed to prove that the claimants had actual knowledge that the causes of action were not vested in them at the time of issuing or continuing proceedings. Mere absence of standing, without such knowledge, is insufficient for abuse. The order striking out the claim is set aside.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 4496 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Kevin Munday; Appellant/claimant: Carolyn Munday; Respondent/defendant: Mr Hilburn; Respondent/defendant: Mr Fields
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim at First Instance
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order striking out claim set aside.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Bankruptcy and Vesting of Claims, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Standing to Sue, Effect of Annulment of Bankruptcy
Civil Procedure Insolvency Property Law Abuse of Process Bankruptcy and Vesting of Claims Fraudulent Misrepresentation Standing to Sue Effect of Annulment of Bankruptcy

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Munday

Appellant/claimant

Carolyn Munday

Appellant/claimant

Mr Hilburn

Respondent/defendant

Mr Fields

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' proceedings were an abuse of process due to lack of standing at commencement
  2. 2 Whether annulment of bankruptcy retrospectively validated the claimants' standing
  3. 3 Whether actual knowledge of lack of standing is required for abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

There was no abuse of process because the defendants failed to prove that the claimants had actual knowledge that the causes of action were not vested in them at the time of issuing or continuing proceedings. Mere absence of standing, without such knowledge, is insufficient for abuse. The order striking out the claim is set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order striking out claim set aside.

Orders

  • Order of His Honour Judge Dight striking out the claim is set aside.
  • Costs and further directions to be determined.