Fielden v hristie -Miller & Ors [2015] EWHC 752 (Ch) (20 March 2015)

Fielden v hristie -Miller & Ors [2015] EWHC 752 (Ch) (20 March 2015)

Permission to amend the counterclaim is refused in its current form because the proposed pleading fails to comply with the requirements for statements of case: it is excessively lengthy, confusing, includes unnecessary background and argument, and does not set out material facts simply and logically. However, Stephen is granted a further and final opportunity to serve an amended pleading within 21 days that complies with proper pleading standards.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 752 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Samuel John Fielden; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Stephen Christie-Miller; Defendant/part 20 Defendant: The Reverend Canon Colin Hill OBE; Defendant/part 20 Defendant: John Morcom; Defendant/part 20 Defendant: Caroline Aylmer Cannon-Brookes; Defendant/part 20 Defendant: Mark Sheardown; Defendant/part 20 Defendant: Piers Marmion; Defendant/part 20 Defendant: Timothy Michael Robinson; Defendant/part 20 Defendant: Anthony David Whiteoak Robinson; Part 20 Defendant: Michael Francis Mostyn Owen Jodrell; Part 20 Defendant: Derek Robin Peppiatt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim With Part 20 Counterclaim / Application for Permission to Amend Part 20 Claim (counterclaim)
Outcome
Permission to amend refused as drafted; further opportunity to amend granted
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Trustee Powers, Pleading Standards, Amendment of Pleadings, Strike Out Applications
Equity and Trusts Property Law Civil Procedure Proprietary Estoppel Trustee Powers Pleading Standards Amendment of Pleadings Strike Out Applications

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel John Fielden

Claimant

Stephen Christie-Miller

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

The Reverend Canon Colin Hill OBE

Defendant/part 20 Defendant

John Morcom

Defendant/part 20 Defendant

Caroline Aylmer Cannon-Brookes

Defendant/part 20 Defendant

Mark Sheardown

Defendant/part 20 Defendant

Piers Marmion

Defendant/part 20 Defendant

Timothy Michael Robinson

Defendant/part 20 Defendant

Anthony David Whiteoak Robinson

Defendant/part 20 Defendant

Michael Francis Mostyn Owen Jodrell

Part 20 Defendant

Derek Robin Peppiatt

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim With Part 20 Counterclaim / Application for Permission to Amend Part 20 Claim (counterclaim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Part 20 claimant (Stephen) should be granted permission to amend his counterclaim alleging proprietary estoppel against the Settlement trustees
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amended pleading complies with the requirements for statements of case
  3. 3 Whether the unanimity principle and non-fettering principle preclude the proprietary estoppel claim

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend the counterclaim is refused in its current form because the proposed pleading fails to comply with the requirements for statements of case: it is excessively lengthy, confusing, includes unnecessary background and argument, and does not set out material facts simply and logically. However, Stephen is granted a further and final opportunity to serve an amended pleading within 21 days that complies with proper pleading standards.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend refused as drafted; further opportunity to amend granted

Orders

  • Stephen Christie-Miller is given 21 days from formal delivery of the judgment to serve a compliant amended pleading.
  • If the Settlement trustees do not oppose the further amended pleading, the court should be informed for appropriate orders and directions.