St Clair v King & Anor [2018] EWHC 682 (Ch) (28 March 2018)

St Clair v King & Anor [2018] EWHC 682 (Ch) (28 March 2018)

The Master's decision to strike out the pursued claims was unjust due to a serious procedural irregularity: he treated the Defendants' strike out application as a summary judgment application without proper notice or explanation to the litigant in person Claimant, depriving her of a fair opportunity to respond. The pursued claims as reformulated have a real prospect of success and should proceed to trial. The appeal is allowed, the strike out is set aside in respect of the pursued claims, and permission to amend is granted subject to excision of certain allegations.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 682 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Anna St Clair; First Defendant/respondent: Nicholas Hilton King; Second Defendant/respondent: June Marion Farrell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal (chancery Division, High Court) / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out and Application to Amend Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Testamentary Capacity, Knowledge and Approval, Fraud, Constructive Trusts, Procedural Irregularity, Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings
Wills and Probate Civil Procedure Undue Influence Testamentary Capacity Knowledge and Approval Fraud Constructive Trusts Procedural Irregularity +3 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anna St Clair

Claimant/appellant

Nicholas Hilton King

First Defendant/respondent

June Marion Farrell

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (chancery Division, High Court) / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out and Application to Amend Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in striking out claims of undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, and fraud
  2. 2 Whether there was a serious procedural irregularity in treating a strike out application as a summary judgment application without proper notice
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant should be permitted to amend her claim to include new claims based on constructive trust and breach of promise

Ratio Decidendi

The Master's decision to strike out the pursued claims was unjust due to a serious procedural irregularity: he treated the Defendants' strike out application as a summary judgment application without proper notice or explanation to the litigant in person Claimant, depriving her of a fair opportunity to respond. The pursued claims as reformulated have a real prospect of success and should proceed to trial. The appeal is allowed, the strike out is set aside in respect of the pursued claims, and permission to amend is granted subject to excision of certain allegations.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Strike out of claims for undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity, and want of knowledge and approval set aside; those claims to proceed to trial as reformulated
  • Permission to amend claim granted subject to excision of certain allegations (fraud/impersonation)