Fielden v Christie-Miller & Ors

Fielden v Christie-Miller & Ors

The rectification claim lacks a real prospect of success as evidence is speculative and does not overcome the presumption that the executed will reflects the testator’s intentions. The trustee removal claim is unfounded as trustees were entitled to defend the estoppel claim and did not breach neutrality. Permission to amend pleadings is granted except for the rectification and trustee removal claims.

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
21 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Applications to Amend Pleadings, Permission for Rectification Claim, and Trustee Removal
Outcome
Permission to amend pleadings granted except for rectification and trustee removal claims. Applications for rectification and trustee removal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Wills, Proprietary Estoppel, Trustee Removal, Pleading Amendments, Fiduciary Duties
Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Rectification of Wills Proprietary Estoppel Trustee Removal Pleading Amendments Fiduciary Duties

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 11 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 / Ruling on Applications to Amend Pleadings, Permission for Rectification Claim, and Trustee Removal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to amend pleadings to include rectification and trustee removal claims
  2. 2 Whether rectification of John’s will is viable under section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982
  3. 3 Whether Settlement trustees should be removed for lack of neutrality

Ratio Decidendi

The rectification claim lacks a real prospect of success as evidence is speculative and does not overcome the presumption that the executed will reflects the testator’s intentions. The trustee removal claim is unfounded as trustees were entitled to defend the estoppel claim and did not breach neutrality. Permission to amend pleadings is granted except for the rectification and trustee removal claims.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend pleadings granted except for rectification and trustee removal claims. Applications for rectification and trustee removal dismissed.

Orders

  • Settlement trustees awarded costs of strike-out application.
  • Stephen Christie-Miller to pay costs of dismissed applications and costs thrown away by amendments.