De Crittenden v Estate of Bayliss (Deceased) & Anor

De Crittenden v Estate of Bayliss (Deceased) & Anor

The second action was an abuse of process as the applicant had previously elected to claim damages for breach of contract and enforced judgment without asserting proprietary or tracing claims, and no fiduciary duties arose under the agreement to support a proprietary claim. The refusal to allow certain amendments was justified as they raised no arguable claim or would unfairly prejudice the defendants.

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 Orders
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted in part, refused in part
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Fiduciary Duties, Tracing Claims, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Equity Contract Law Abuse of Process 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 Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second action was an abuse of process due to prior election of remedies
  2. 2 Whether fiduciary duties arose under the agreement between the applicant and Mr Bayliss
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to a proprietary tracing remedy in the Carlton Mews property

Ratio Decidendi

The second action was an abuse of process as the applicant had previously elected to claim damages for breach of contract and enforced judgment without asserting proprietary or tracing claims, and no fiduciary duties arose under the agreement to support a proprietary claim. The refusal to allow certain amendments was justified as they raised no arguable claim or would unfairly prejudice the defendants.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted in part, refused in part

Orders

  • Permission to appeal 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