Barclay & Ors v Smith & Anor [2016] EWHC 210 (Ch) (10 February 2016)

Barclay & Ors v Smith & Anor [2016] EWHC 210 (Ch) (10 February 2016)

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to appoint the Claimants as trustees for a further five-year term, finding it appropriate given the expiry of previous terms, the need for certainty in trust administration, and the absence of any objection or evidence of unfitness. The court would also have found it expedient and impracticable to appoint trustees out of court, justifying use of s.41 Trustee Act 1925 if necessary.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 210 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: John Robert Troutbeck Barclay; Claimant: Christopher John Stanley Bidwell; Claimant: David Brian Roden Bowden; Claimant: Robin Francis Sidney Wilson; Claimant: Neil Spencer Chapman; Claimant: Michael Philip Davids; Defendant: Andrew Smith; Defendant: Paul Grant Self Hird
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (trusts) / Judgment After Hearing on Appointment of Trustees
Outcome
Claim allowed; Claimants appointed as trustees for five years from 7 January 2016 in substitution for themselves and the Second Defendant.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Trustees, Inherent Jurisdiction, Trustee Act 1925 S.41, Interpretation of Trust Deeds
Trusts and Estates Charity Law Appointment of Trustees Inherent Jurisdiction Trustee Act 1925 S.41 Interpretation of Trust Deeds

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Robert Troutbeck Barclay

Claimant

Christopher John Stanley Bidwell

Claimant

David Brian Roden Bowden

Claimant

Robin Francis Sidney Wilson

Claimant

Neil Spencer Chapman

Claimant

Michael Philip Davids

Claimant

Andrew Smith

Defendant

Paul Grant Self Hird

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (trusts) / Judgment After Hearing on Appointment of Trustees

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should appoint or confirm the Claimants as trustees of the Spen Cama Cricket Foundation under s.41 Trustee Act 1925 and/or inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants' previous terms as trustees had expired and if so, whether they could be reappointed
  3. 3 Whether it was expedient, difficult or impracticable to appoint trustees without the court's assistance

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to appoint the Claimants as trustees for a further five-year term, finding it appropriate given the expiry of previous terms, the need for certainty in trust administration, and the absence of any objection or evidence of unfitness. The court would also have found it expedient and impracticable to appoint trustees out of court, justifying use of s.41 Trustee Act 1925 if necessary.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Claimants appointed as trustees for five years from 7 January 2016 in substitution for themselves and the Second Defendant.

Orders

  • Claimants appointed as trustees of the Spen Cama Cricket Foundation for a further five-year term from 7 January 2016 in substitution for themselves and the Second Defendant.
  • No vesting order made; vesting to be arranged between continuing and retiring trustees.