Barclay & Ors v Smith & Anor

Barclay & Ors v Smith & Anor

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to appoint the Claimants as trustees for a further five-year term, finding it appropriate given the uncertainty over the validity of previous appointments, the need for clarity in trust administration, and the absence of any objection or evidence of unfitness. The court would also have found it inexpedient and impracticable to appoint trustees without its assistance, justifying appointment under section 41 Trustee Act 1925 if necessary.

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
Trusts – Appointment of Trustees / Judgment on Claim for Appointment/confirmation of Trustees Under S 41 Trustee Act 1925 And/or Inherent Jurisdiction
Outcome
Claim allowed; Claimants appointed as trustees for five years under inherent jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Appointment of Trustees, Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, Trustee Act 1925 Section 41, Trust Deed Interpretation
Trusts and Estates Appointment of Trustees Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court Trustee Act 1925 Section 41 Trust Deed Interpretation

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 5 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

Trusts – Appointment of Trustees / Judgment on Claim for Appointment/confirmation of Trustees Under S 41 Trustee Act 1925 And/or Inherent Jurisdiction

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 the inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the previous appointments had lapsed and if so, who could exercise trustee powers
  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 uncertainty over the validity of previous appointments, the need for clarity in trust administration, and the absence of any objection or evidence of unfitness. The court would also have found it inexpedient and impracticable to appoint trustees without its assistance, justifying appointment under section 41 Trustee Act 1925 if necessary.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Claimants appointed as trustees for five years under inherent jurisdiction

Orders

  • Claimants appointed as trustees of the Spen Cama Cricket Foundation for a 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