St Clair v King & Anor

St Clair v King & Anor

The Master’s decision to treat the strike out application as a summary judgment application without proper notice or explanation to the litigant in person was a serious procedural irregularity rendering the decision unjust. The claims for undue influence, want of knowledge and approval, and lack of testamentary capacity as now pleaded have a real prospect of success and should not have been summarily struck out. The fraud claim against the First Defendant is entirely without foundation and cannot proceed. The Claimant is permitted to amend her particulars of claim to include the mutual wills and breach of promise claims. The costs order on the indemnity basis is set aside.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Anna St Clair; Defendant/respondent: Nicholas Hilton King; Defendant/respondent: June Marion Farrell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out and Application to Amend Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; permission to amend particulars of claim granted except for the fraud claim; costs order on indemnity basis set aside.
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Testamentary Capacity, Knowledge and Approval, Mutual Wills, Constructive Trust, Fraudulent Calumny, Procedural Irregularity, Amendment of Pleadings, Costs
Succession Probate Civil Procedure Undue Influence Testamentary Capacity Knowledge and Approval Mutual Wills Constructive Trust +4 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 7 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anna St Clair

Claimant/appellant

Nicholas Hilton King

Defendant/respondent

June Marion Farrell

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out and Application to Amend Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in striking out the claims for 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 particulars of claim to include new claims of mutual wills and breach of promise

Ratio Decidendi

The Master’s decision to treat the strike out application as a summary judgment application without proper notice or explanation to the litigant in person was a serious procedural irregularity rendering the decision unjust. The claims for undue influence, want of knowledge and approval, and lack of testamentary capacity as now pleaded have a real prospect of success and should not have been summarily struck out. The fraud claim against the First Defendant is entirely without foundation and cannot proceed. The Claimant is permitted to amend her particulars of claim to include the mutual wills and breach of promise claims. The costs order on the indemnity basis is set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; permission to amend particulars of claim granted except for the fraud claim; costs order on indemnity basis set aside.

Orders

  • Permission to amend particulars of claim to include undue influence, want of knowledge and approval, lack of testamentary capacity, mutual wills, and breach of promise claims (with specified excisions)
  • Fraud claim against First Defendant struck out and not permitted to proceed