Barnes & Ors v Tomlinson & Ors [2006] EWHC 3115 (Ch) (07 December 2006)

Barnes & Ors v Tomlinson & Ors [2006] EWHC 3115 (Ch) (07 December 2006)

The court found that Mr Bretherton and Mr Burton acted honestly and in good faith, did not act dishonestly or in wilful breach of trust, and were protected by the exclusion clauses in the Settlement. The emoluments and ex gratia payments were not excessive or dishonest given the work performed and responsibilities held. There was no breach of trust or fiduciary duty established against them.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 3115 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Derek Hugh Barnes; Claimant: Lesley Ann Barnes; Claimant: Dominic Hugh Barnes; Claimant: Natasha Heath Smith; Claimant: Charlotte Heath Smith; Defendant: Brian Tomlinson; Defendant: Peter William Bretherton; Defendant: Marjorie Burton (as personal representative of Frank Milner Burton)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Breach of Trust / High Court Chancery Division, Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claims against Mr Bretherton and Mr Burton dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust, Trustee Duties, Directors' Emoluments, Dishonesty and Fiduciary Obligations, Exclusion Clauses in Trust Deeds
Trusts and Equity Company Law Breach of Trust Trustee Duties Directors' Emoluments Dishonesty and Fiduciary Obligations Exclusion Clauses in 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derek Hugh Barnes

Claimant

Lesley Ann Barnes

Claimant

Dominic Hugh Barnes

Claimant

Natasha Heath Smith

Claimant

Charlotte Heath Smith

Claimant

Brian Tomlinson

Defendant

Peter William Bretherton

Defendant

Marjorie Burton (as personal representative of Frank Milner Burton)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Breach of Trust / High Court Chancery Division, Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant trustees acted dishonestly or in breach of trust in relation to emoluments, resignation, ex gratia payments, and failure to remove directors.
  2. 2 Whether the trustees' actions fell within the protection of exclusion clauses in the Settlement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Bretherton and Mr Burton acted honestly and in good faith, did not act dishonestly or in wilful breach of trust, and were protected by the exclusion clauses in the Settlement. The emoluments and ex gratia payments were not excessive or dishonest given the work performed and responsibilities held. There was no breach of trust or fiduciary duty established against them.

Court Disposition

Claims against Mr Bretherton and Mr Burton dismissed.

Orders

  • No order for relief against Mr Bretherton or Mr Burton.