Fielden v Christie-Miller & Ors [2015] EWHC 87 (Ch) (22 January 2015)

Fielden v Christie-Miller & Ors [2015] EWHC 87 (Ch) (22 January 2015)

The proprietary estoppel claim as pleaded is insufficient regarding the unanimity principle because it does not adequately set out how representations by one trustee bound the others; unless amended, the claim will fail. However, the non-fettering principle does not automatically defeat a proprietary estoppel claim where the claimant has otherwise established the necessary ingredients; the court may grant relief to prevent unconscionable conduct without compelling trustees to exercise their discretion in a particular way.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 87 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Samuel John Fielden; First Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Stephen Christie-Miller; Second Defendant/part 20 Defendant: The Reverend Canon Colin Hill OBE; Third Defendant/part 20 Defendant: John Morcom; Fourth Defendant/part 20 Defendant: Caroline Aylmer Cannon-Brookes; Fifth Defendant/part 20 Defendant: Mark Sheardown; Sixth Defendant/part 20 Defendant: Piers Marmion; Seventh Defendant/part 20 Defendant: Timothy Michael Robinson; Eighth Defendant/part 20 Defendant: Anthony David Whiteoak Robinson; Ninth Part 20 Defendant: Michael Francis Mostyn Owen Jodrell; Tenth Part 20 Defendant: Derek Robin Peppiatt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim With Part 20 Counterclaim / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment on Part 20 Claim
Outcome
Application to strike out or for summary judgment on the Part 20 claim based on the non-fettering principle refused; claim as pleaded insufficient on unanimity principle unless amended.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Trustee Powers, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Non Fettering Principle, Unanimity Principle
Trusts and Estates Equity Proprietary Estoppel Trustee Powers Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Non Fettering Principle Unanimity Principle

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel John Fielden

Claimant

Stephen Christie-Miller

First Defendant/part 20 Claimant

The Reverend Canon Colin Hill OBE

Second Defendant/part 20 Defendant

John Morcom

Third Defendant/part 20 Defendant

Caroline Aylmer Cannon-Brookes

Fourth Defendant/part 20 Defendant

Mark Sheardown

Fifth Defendant/part 20 Defendant

Piers Marmion

Sixth Defendant/part 20 Defendant

Timothy Michael Robinson

Seventh Defendant/part 20 Defendant

Anthony David Whiteoak Robinson

Eighth Defendant/part 20 Defendant

Michael Francis Mostyn Owen Jodrell

Ninth Part 20 Defendant

Derek Robin Peppiatt

Tenth Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim With Part 20 Counterclaim / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment on Part 20 Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a proprietary estoppel claim against trustees is sufficiently pleaded where representations are made by less than all trustees (unanimity principle)
  2. 2 Whether the non-fettering principle in trust law bars a proprietary estoppel claim based on future exercise of trustee discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The proprietary estoppel claim as pleaded is insufficient regarding the unanimity principle because it does not adequately set out how representations by one trustee bound the others; unless amended, the claim will fail. However, the non-fettering principle does not automatically defeat a proprietary estoppel claim where the claimant has otherwise established the necessary ingredients; the court may grant relief to prevent unconscionable conduct without compelling trustees to exercise their discretion in a particular way.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out or for summary judgment on the Part 20 claim based on the non-fettering principle refused; claim as pleaded insufficient on unanimity principle unless amended.

Orders

  • Strike out or summary judgment refused on non-fettering principle.
  • Claimant permitted to apply to amend pleadings to address unanimity principle.