De Crittenden v Bayliss

De Crittenden v Bayliss

The appellant was barred from pursuing the proprietary claim in the present action because he could and should have brought it in the first action, having sufficient knowledge by May 2000. The present proceedings amounted to an abuse of process and were properly struck out. The judge's evaluative decision was legitimate and should not be interfered with.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Raymond De Crittenden; Defendant/respondent: The Estate of Charles Albert Bayliss (Deceased); Defendant/respondent: Lesley Anne Bayliss
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Election of Remedies, Abuse of Process, Constructive Trusts, Tracing, Fiduciary Duties
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Election of Remedies Abuse of Process Constructive Trusts Tracing Fiduciary Duties

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond De Crittenden

Appellant/claimant

The Estate of Charles Albert Bayliss (Deceased)

Defendant/respondent

Lesley Anne Bayliss

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is barred by election from pursuing the present proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the present proceedings amount to an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether a fiduciary duty was owed by Mr Bayliss to Mr De Crittenden in relation to assets preserved or recovered

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was barred from pursuing the proprietary claim in the present action because he could and should have brought it in the first action, having sufficient knowledge by May 2000. The present proceedings amounted to an abuse of process and were properly struck out. The judge's evaluative decision was legitimate and should not be interfered with.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs of the appeal
  • Freezing order lifted