Jones & Ors v Firkin-Flood [2008] EWHC 2417 (Ch) (17 October 2008)

Jones & Ors v Firkin-Flood [2008] EWHC 2417 (Ch) (17 October 2008)

There was no binding Equal Shares Agreement made or notified to the trustees that restricted or fettered their discretion under the Will. The trustees are entitled to exercise their powers of appointment and distribution in accordance with the Will and their provisional resolution. The evidence did not establish any binding family settlement or misconduct justifying removal of the trustees.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2417 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/trustee: Thomas Jones; Claimant/trustee: Ian Douglas Firkin-Flood; Claimant/trustee: Norma Levy; Claimant/trustee: John Graham Bramley; Defendant/beneficiary: Daniel Firkin-Flood; Defendant/beneficiary: Louise Firkin-Flood; Interested Party: Minors and Unborn Beneficiaries
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim Under CPR 64.2 (trusts and Estates) / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; trustees' powers not fettered; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Trustee Powers, Exercise of Discretion, Alleged Family Settlement, Removal of Trustees, Distribution of Estate, Validity of Will, Breach of Trust
Trusts and Estates Equity Probate Trustee Powers Exercise of Discretion Alleged Family Settlement Removal of Trustees Distribution of Estate +2 more

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Jones

Claimant/trustee

Ian Douglas Firkin-Flood

Claimant/trustee

Norma Levy

Claimant/trustee

John Graham Bramley

Claimant/trustee

Daniel Firkin-Flood

Defendant/beneficiary

Louise Firkin-Flood

Defendant/beneficiary

Minors and Unborn Beneficiaries

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim Under CPR 64.2 (trusts and Estates) / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trustees' powers under the Will are restricted, limited or compromised by virtue of the alleged Equal Shares Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the trustees may properly exercise their powers of appointment and distribution under the Will trust so as to give effect or substantial effect to the provisional resolution
  3. 3 Whether there was an enforceable Equal Shares Agreement binding on the trustees

Ratio Decidendi

There was no binding Equal Shares Agreement made or notified to the trustees that restricted or fettered their discretion under the Will. The trustees are entitled to exercise their powers of appointment and distribution in accordance with the Will and their provisional resolution. The evidence did not establish any binding family settlement or misconduct justifying removal of the trustees.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; trustees' powers not fettered; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the trustees' powers under the Will are not restricted or limited by any Equal Shares Agreement
  • Declaration that the trustees may properly exercise their powers of appointment and distribution under the Will trust as per their provisional resolution