Scott & Ors v Honeyman-Scott [2001] EWCA Civ 2087 (17 December 2001)

Scott & Ors v Honeyman-Scott [2001] EWCA Civ 2087 (17 December 2001)

A defaulting trustee/beneficiary who has been overpaid is treated as having already received their share, and is not entitled to further payments from the estate until the overpayment is made good. The principle is not discretionary and is not displaced by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR, as there is no deprivation of possessions in these circumstances.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 2087
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Betty Scott; Claimant/respondent: Joan Pouncett; Claimant/respondent: John Allan Jones; Defendant/appellant: Peggy Sue Honeyman-Scott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust, Beneficiary Rights, Impounding of Beneficial Interest, Article 1 First Protocol ECHR, Enforcement of Judgments
Trusts and Estates Equity Human Rights Breach of Trust Beneficiary Rights Impounding of Beneficial Interest Article 1 First Protocol ECHR Enforcement of Judgments

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Betty Scott

Claimant/respondent

Joan Pouncett

Claimant/respondent

John Allan Jones

Claimant/respondent

Peggy Sue Honeyman-Scott

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a defaulting trustee/beneficiary can receive further payments from the trust/estate before making good the breach of trust
  2. 2 Whether the impounding of a defaulting trustee's beneficial interest is compatible with Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

A defaulting trustee/beneficiary who has been overpaid is treated as having already received their share, and is not entitled to further payments from the estate until the overpayment is made good. The principle is not discretionary and is not displaced by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR, as there is no deprivation of possessions in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No further payments to the applicant from the estate until the sum of £372,184 and costs are paid in full
  • No order for costs on the application