Fielden v hristie -Miller & Ors

Fielden v hristie -Miller & Ors

Permission to amend the Part 20 counterclaim is refused as presently drafted due to failure to comply with pleading requirements for concise and logical statements of material facts. However, Stephen Christie-Miller is granted a further and final opportunity to produce a compliant amended pleading within 21 days.

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
Civil / Application for Permission to Amend Counterclaim
Outcome
Permission to amend refused as presently drafted; leave granted to submit further compliant amended pleading within 21 days.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Trustee Powers, Pleading Standards
Trusts and Estates Property Law Proprietary Estoppel Trustee Powers Pleading Standards

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 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

Civil / Application for Permission to Amend Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to amend the Part 20 counterclaim alleging proprietary estoppel against Settlement trustees
  2. 2 Whether the amended pleading complies with requirements for concise and logical statements of material facts
  3. 3 Application of the unanimity principle and non-fettering principle to proprietary estoppel claims against trustees

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend the Part 20 counterclaim is refused as presently drafted due to failure to comply with pleading requirements for concise and logical statements of material facts. However, Stephen Christie-Miller is granted a further and final opportunity to produce a compliant amended pleading within 21 days.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend refused as presently drafted; leave granted to submit further compliant amended pleading within 21 days.

Orders

  • Stephen Christie-Miller to serve an amended pleading within 21 days from formal delivery of judgment.
  • If Settlement trustees do not oppose the further amended pleading, parties to inform the court for appropriate order and directions.