James Martin Kekwick v Christopher Alan Kekwick & Anor.

James Martin Kekwick v Christopher Alan Kekwick & Anor.

No action for breach of trust was brought by the beneficiary within the limitation period; procedural steps taken did not amount to an 'action' under the Limitation Act 1980. Trustees were not in breach for failing to distribute or invest the trust fund as they acted on legal advice and could not safely distribute without proof of identity. Legal costs assessment was refused as unproductive and disproportionate.

Parties
Claimant: James Martin Kekwick; First Defendant (trustee): Dr Christopher Alan Kekwick; Second Defendant (trustee): Stuart Hutson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Trust Dispute (part 8 Claim) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues and Procedural Applications
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined in favour of the trustees; claimant's application to amend refused; further directions hearing ordered.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Breach of Trust, Trustee Duties, Assessment of Legal Costs, Distribution of Trust Assets, Relief Under Trustee Act, Beneficiary Identification, Legal Professional Privilege
Trusts and Estates Equity Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Breach of Trust Trustee Duties Assessment of Legal Costs Distribution of Trust Assets +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Martin Kekwick

Claimant

Dr Christopher Alan Kekwick

First Defendant (trustee)

Stuart Hutson

Second Defendant (trustee)

Procedural Posture

Trust Dispute (part 8 Claim) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues and Procedural Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether objections to the trustees' conduct are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether legal costs incurred by trustees should be referred for assessment
  3. 3 Whether certain documents provide a defence to failure to invest trust funds

Ratio Decidendi

No action for breach of trust was brought by the beneficiary within the limitation period; procedural steps taken did not amount to an 'action' under the Limitation Act 1980. Trustees were not in breach for failing to distribute or invest the trust fund as they acted on legal advice and could not safely distribute without proof of identity. Legal costs assessment was refused as unproductive and disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined in favour of the trustees; claimant's application to amend refused; further directions hearing ordered.

Orders

  • Permission to re-amend the claim form refused.
  • Legal costs not referred for assessment.