Twin Benefits Ltd v Barker [2017] EWHC 1412 (Ch) (19 June 2017)

Twin Benefits Ltd v Barker [2017] EWHC 1412 (Ch) (19 June 2017)

Mr. Barker, as protector, did not owe the fiduciary duties alleged to Tom and Freya Barker; even if such duties existed, Tom and Freya would have standing as contingent beneficiaries, but all claims for breach of fiduciary duty and restitution were compromised and bound by the Confiance Settlement and Asplin J....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1412 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Twin Benefits Limited; First Defendant: Iain Paul Barker; Second Defendant: Confiance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Jurisdiction Challenge on Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Claim dismissed for lack of serious issue to be tried; permission to serve out of jurisdiction set aside.
Legal Topics
Fiduciary Duties of Protectors, Standing of Contingent Beneficiaries, Effect of Compromise Orders, Jurisdiction to Serve Out, Restitution/unjust Enrichment
Trusts Civil Procedure Fiduciary Duties of Protectors Standing of Contingent Beneficiaries Effect of Compromise Orders Jurisdiction to Serve Out Restitution/unjust Enrichment

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Twin Benefits Limited

Claimant

Iain Paul Barker

First Defendant

Confiance Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Jurisdiction Challenge on Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Mr. Barker owe fiduciary duties as protector to Tom and Freya Barker?
  2. 2 Do Tom and Freya have locus standi as contingent beneficiaries?
  3. 3 Are claims for breach of fiduciary duty and restitution barred by the Confiance Settlement and Asplin J. Order?

Ratio Decidendi

Mr. Barker, as protector, did not owe the fiduciary duties alleged to Tom and Freya Barker; even if such duties existed, Tom and Freya would have standing as contingent beneficiaries, but all claims for breach of fiduciary duty and restitution were compromised and bound by the Confiance Settlement and Asplin J. Order. There is no serious issue to be tried for permission to serve out under Gateway (9), and the right to apply under CPR 19.7(7) is not a transferable cause of action.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed for lack of serious issue to be tried; permission to serve out of jurisdiction set aside.

Orders

  • Permission to serve out of jurisdiction against Mr. Barker set aside.
  • Claim against Mr. Barker dismissed.