Mills & Reece Trust Corporation Limited v Brian Vincent Martin & Ors.

Mills & Reece Trust Corporation Limited v Brian Vincent Martin & Ors.

The court held that it was necessary for the hearing to be held in private due to commercially sensitive information and the risk of prejudice to the trust beneficiaries. The court found it had no power to order mandatory mediation, being bound by Halsey, and declined to order any other form of mandatory ADR or a stay for ADR, given the intractable and longstanding nature of the dispute. A short extension of time to respond to the claim was granted.

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
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Trusts/part 8 Claim / Interlocutory Applications—privacy, Mediation, Adr, Extension of Time
Outcome
Applications for mandatory mediation, ADR, and extended time refused; hearing held in private; short extension of time to respond granted.
Legal Topics
Privacy of Hearings, Mandatory Mediation, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Extension of Time, Trustee Powers
Trusts Civil Procedure Privacy of Hearings Mandatory Mediation Alternative Dispute Resolution Extension of Time Trustee Powers

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
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

Trusts/part 8 Claim / Interlocutory Applications—privacy, Mediation, Adr, Extension of Time

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it was necessary for the hearing to be held in private due to commercially sensitive information and the risk of prejudice to the trust beneficiaries. The court found it had no power to order mandatory mediation, being bound by Halsey, and declined to order any other form of mandatory ADR or a stay for ADR, given the intractable and longstanding nature of the dispute. A short extension of time to respond to the claim was granted.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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