Fielden v Christie-Miller & Ors

Fielden v Christie-Miller & Ors

The proprietary estoppel claim as pleaded fails to set out sufficient facts to show that all trustees were bound by the representations relied upon, as required by the unanimity principle. The non-fettering principle does not, as a matter of law, automatically defeat a proprietary estoppel claim where the other ingredients are established; the issue is fact-sensitive and should be determined at trial. The application to strike out or summarily dismiss the claim on the non-fettering ground is refused, but unless the pleading is amended to address the unanimity issue, the claim will fail.

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
22 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil (trusts/estoppel) / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application to strike out or summarily dismiss the proprietary estoppel claim on the non-fettering ground refused; claim as pleaded is insufficient on the unanimity ground unless amended.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Trustee Powers, Agency, Non Fettering Principle, Unanimity Principle
Equity and Trusts Proprietary Estoppel Trustee Powers Agency 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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

Civil (trusts/estoppel) / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleaded case in proprietary estoppel against the trustees is sufficient to proceed to trial
  2. 2 Whether the unanimity principle in trust law defeats the estoppel claim as pleaded
  3. 3 Whether the non-fettering principle in trust law defeats the estoppel claim as pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The proprietary estoppel claim as pleaded fails to set out sufficient facts to show that all trustees were bound by the representations relied upon, as required by the unanimity principle. The non-fettering principle does not, as a matter of law, automatically defeat a proprietary estoppel claim where the other ingredients are established; the issue is fact-sensitive and should be determined at trial. The application to strike out or summarily dismiss the claim on the non-fettering ground is refused, but unless the pleading is amended to address the unanimity issue, the claim will fail.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out or summarily dismiss the proprietary estoppel claim on the non-fettering ground refused; claim as pleaded is insufficient on the unanimity ground unless amended.

Orders

  • Part 20 claim not struck out or summarily dismissed on non-fettering ground;
  • Claimant given opportunity to amend pleading to address unanimity issue;