Fielden v Christie-Miller & Ors [2015] EWHC 2940 (Ch) (21 October 2015)

Fielden v Christie-Miller & Ors [2015] EWHC 2940 (Ch) (21 October 2015)

The evidence did not establish a real prospect of success that John Christie-Miller executed the wrong will or that rectification was justified; the claim was speculative and unsupported by convincing evidence. Delay was not, in itself, a bar, but the merits were insufficient. The application to remove the Settlement trustees also failed as the pleaded grounds did not meet the threshold for removal.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2940 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant / First Part 20 Defendant: Samuel John Fielden; First Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: Stephen Christie-Miller; Second Defendant / Second Part 20 Defendant: The Reverend Canon Colin Hill OBE; Third Defendant / Third Part 20 Defendant: John Morcom; Fourth Defendant / Fourth Part 20 Defendant: Caroline Aylmer Cannon-Brookes; Fifth Defendant / Fifth Part 20 Defendant: Mark Sheardown; Sixth Defendant / Sixth Part 20 Defendant: Piers Marmion; Seventh Defendant / Seventh Part 20 Defendant: Timothy Michael Robinson; Eighth Defendant / Eighth 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
21 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Trusts and Estates Dispute / Interlocutory Judgment on Applications to Amend Pleadings, Bring Rectification Claim, and Remove Trustees
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Wills, Proprietary Estoppel, Trustee Removal, Construction of Trust Instruments, Delay and Limitation in Probate Claims
Trusts and Estates Wills and Probate Equity Rectification of Wills Proprietary Estoppel Trustee Removal Construction of Trust Instruments Delay and Limitation in Probate Claims

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel John Fielden

Claimant / First Part 20 Defendant

Stephen Christie-Miller

First Defendant / Part 20 Claimant

The Reverend Canon Colin Hill OBE

Second Defendant / Second Part 20 Defendant

John Morcom

Third Defendant / Third Part 20 Defendant

Caroline Aylmer Cannon-Brookes

Fourth Defendant / Fourth Part 20 Defendant

Mark Sheardown

Fifth Defendant / Fifth Part 20 Defendant

Piers Marmion

Sixth Defendant / Sixth Part 20 Defendant

Timothy Michael Robinson

Seventh Defendant / Seventh Part 20 Defendant

Anthony David Whiteoak Robinson

Eighth Defendant / Eighth Part 20 Defendant

Michael Francis Mostyn Owen Jodrell

Ninth Part 20 Defendant

Derek Robin Peppiatt

Tenth Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Trusts and Estates Dispute / Interlocutory Judgment on Applications to Amend Pleadings, Bring Rectification Claim, and Remove Trustees

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to amend pleadings to include a rectification claim regarding the will of John Christie-Miller
  2. 2 Whether permission should be granted to bring a rectification claim out of time under s.20 Administration of Justice Act 1982
  3. 3 Whether the Settlement trustees should be removed for lack of neutrality or conflict of interest

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish a real prospect of success that John Christie-Miller executed the wrong will or that rectification was justified; the claim was speculative and unsupported by convincing evidence. Delay was not, in itself, a bar, but the merits were insufficient. The application to remove the Settlement trustees also failed as the pleaded grounds did not meet the threshold for removal.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to amend pleadings to include rectification claim refused
  • Permission to bring rectification claim out of time refused