Henry Charles Anderson & Anor v Andrew Craige Curtis & Ors

Henry Charles Anderson & Anor v Andrew Craige Curtis & Ors

The only Quistclose trust that could arise on the facts was one over the loan monies for the purpose of the development. Once the monies were used for the development, the purpose was fulfilled and the trust ended. The Claimants retained no proprietary interest in the development or its assets, and cannot trace or...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Henry Charles Anderson; Claimant: Howtel Limited; Defendant: Andrew Craige Curtis; Defendant: IDM West London Ltd; Defendant: Gastony International Ltd; Defendant: Moorhen Properties Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (property/trusts) / Summary Judgment and Application to Amend Claim
Outcome
Claim dismissed; summary judgment for the First and Second Defendants; application to amend dismissed.
Legal Topics
Quistclose Trusts, Resulting Trusts, Summary Judgment, Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Implied Terms, Tracing, Breach of Trust
Equity and Trusts Property Law Civil Procedure Quistclose Trusts Resulting Trusts Summary Judgment Dishonest Assistance Knowing Receipt +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Charles Anderson

Claimant

Howtel Limited

Claimant

Andrew Craige Curtis

Defendant

IDM West London Ltd

Defendant

Gastony International Ltd

Defendant

Moorhen Properties Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (property/trusts) / Summary Judgment and Application to Amend Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Quistclose trust arose over the loan monies advanced by the Claimants
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants retained a proprietary interest in the development or its assets after the loan monies were used
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants can trace their interest into the development and claim breach of trust

Ratio Decidendi

The only Quistclose trust that could arise on the facts was one over the loan monies for the purpose of the development. Once the monies were used for the development, the purpose was fulfilled and the trust ended. The Claimants retained no proprietary interest in the development or its assets, and cannot trace or claim breach of trust. There is no realistic prospect of establishing a wider trust or implied term as contended by the Claimants.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; summary judgment for the First and Second Defendants; application to amend dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the First and Second Defendants
  • Claim dismissed