Mills & Reeve Trust Corporation Ltd v Martin & Ors [2023] EWHC 654 (Ch) (24 May 2023)

Mills & Reeve Trust Corporation Ltd v Martin & Ors [2023] EWHC 654 (Ch) (24 May 2023)

The court is bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Halsey, which precludes ordering mandatory mediation against unwilling parties. The hearing was held in private due to the commercially sensitive nature of the trust property and the risk of prejudice to beneficiaries if confidential information were made public. No stay for mediation or ADR was ordered due to the intractable and longstanding nature of the dispute and the lack of realistic prospects for ADR success. A short extension of time to respond to the claim was granted, but not the extended period sought.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 654 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mills & Reeve Trust Corporation Limited; First Defendant: Brian Vincent Martin; Second Defendant: Michael Martin; Third Defendant: The Estate of Anne Lindley; Fourth Defendant: Gerald Martin; Fifth Defendant: Peter John Martin; Sixth Defendant: Dermot John Martin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (trusts) / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Applications for mandatory mediation, stay for ADR, and extended time refused; hearing held in private; short extension of time to respond granted.
Legal Topics
Mandatory Mediation, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Open Justice, Trustee Powers, Extension of Time, Privacy in Court Proceedings
Trusts Property Law Civil Procedure Mandatory Mediation Alternative Dispute Resolution Open Justice Trustee Powers Extension of Time +1 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mills & Reeve Trust Corporation Limited

Claimant

Brian Vincent Martin

First Defendant

Michael Martin

Second Defendant

The Estate of Anne Lindley

Third Defendant

Gerald Martin

Fourth Defendant

Peter John Martin

Fifth Defendant

Dermot John Martin

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (trusts) / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing should be held in private due to commercial confidentiality
  2. 2 Whether the court has power to order mandatory mediation or other ADR
  3. 3 Whether to grant a stay to facilitate mediation or ADR

Ratio Decidendi

The court is bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Halsey, which precludes ordering mandatory mediation against unwilling parties. The hearing was held in private due to the commercially sensitive nature of the trust property and the risk of prejudice to beneficiaries if confidential information were made public. No stay for mediation or ADR was ordered due to the intractable and longstanding nature of the dispute and the lack of realistic prospects for ADR success. A short extension of time to respond to the claim was granted, but not the extended period sought.

Court Disposition

Applications for mandatory mediation, stay for ADR, and extended time refused; hearing held in private; short extension of time to respond granted.

Orders

  • Hearing to be held in private; no public access to documents except by parties.
  • No order for mandatory mediation or other ADR; no stay granted.