Samuel v Samuel & Ors [2018] EWHC 3513 (Ch) (17 December 2018)

Samuel v Samuel & Ors [2018] EWHC 3513 (Ch) (17 December 2018)

Merlina's claim is an abuse of process because she was a party to the earlier proceedings, failed to formally assert her claim or counterclaim as required by CPR r 57.8(1), and is now seeking substantially the same relief. Her failure to participate is not excused by lack of funds or mental health. The public interest in finality and preventing duplicate litigation outweighs her individual circumstances.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3513 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Merlina Jacqueline Samuel; First Defendant: Syleta Monica Susan Samuel; Second Defendant: Elan Ezekiel Clifton Samuel; Third Defendant: Christopher Terry Glen Samuel; Fourth Defendant: Japeth Fitzroy Samuel; Fifth Defendant: Carlos Alfrido Warwick
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Probate Claim / Strike Out Application
Outcome
Claim dismissed as abuse of process
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Finality of Litigation, Testamentary Capacity, Undue Influence, Procedural Default
Probate Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Finality of Litigation Testamentary Capacity Undue Influence Procedural Default

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Merlina Jacqueline Samuel

Claimant

Syleta Monica Susan Samuel

First Defendant

Elan Ezekiel Clifton Samuel

Second Defendant

Christopher Terry Glen Samuel

Third Defendant

Japeth Fitzroy Samuel

Fourth Defendant

Carlos Alfrido Warwick

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Claim / Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's probate claim constitutes an abuse of process due to prior proceedings
  2. 2 Whether failure to participate in earlier proceedings bars subsequent claims
  3. 3 Whether lack of funds or mental health excuses procedural default

Ratio Decidendi

Merlina's claim is an abuse of process because she was a party to the earlier proceedings, failed to formally assert her claim or counterclaim as required by CPR r 57.8(1), and is now seeking substantially the same relief. Her failure to participate is not excused by lack of funds or mental health. The public interest in finality and preventing duplicate litigation outweighs her individual circumstances.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as abuse of process

Orders

  • Strike out of Merlina Jacqueline Samuel's probate claim
  • No order as to costs