STEPHEN KINDRED & ORS. v CHRISTOPHER WARHURST & ORS.

STEPHEN KINDRED & ORS. v CHRISTOPHER WARHURST & ORS.

The claims by the first and second claimants against the second to fourth defendants are struck out as an abuse of process because they are precluded by the RSA, which has not been challenged for validity. Only the claim relating to the alleged fraudulent application for a unilateral notice (paragraph 7(qq)) survives. The claims against the first defendant are not struck out in their entirety as there are aspects, particularly those by the third claimant who was not a party to the RSA, that may proceed. The pleadings are to be fundamentally recast and re-particularised to clarify the surviving claims.

Parties
Claimant: Stephen Kindred; Claimant: Mary Kindred; Claimant: Geoffrey Peter Simcox; Defendant: Christopher Warhurst; Defendant: Paul Serjeant; Defendant: Deborah Serjeant; Defendant: Catherine Serjeant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Strike Out Applications
Outcome
Particulars of Claim struck out with leave to re-plead; only certain claims may proceed
Legal Topics
Co Ownership of Property, Settlement Agreements, Trusteeship, Striking Out Pleadings, Abuse of Process
Trusts Property Law Contract Law Co Ownership of Property Settlement Agreements Trusteeship Striking Out Pleadings Abuse of Process

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Kindred

Claimant

Mary Kindred

Claimant

Geoffrey Peter Simcox

Claimant

Christopher Warhurst

Defendant

Paul Serjeant

Defendant

Deborah Serjeant

Defendant

Catherine Serjeant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Strike Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims against the second to fourth defendants should be struck out as an abuse of process due to a prior settlement agreement (RSA)
  2. 2 Whether the claims against the first defendant should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds
  3. 3 Whether the third claimant's claim survives the RSA

Ratio Decidendi

The claims by the first and second claimants against the second to fourth defendants are struck out as an abuse of process because they are precluded by the RSA, which has not been challenged for validity. Only the claim relating to the alleged fraudulent application for a unilateral notice (paragraph 7(qq)) survives. The claims against the first defendant are not struck out in their entirety as there are aspects, particularly those by the third claimant who was not a party to the RSA, that may proceed. The pleadings are to be fundamentally recast and re-particularised to clarify the surviving claims.

Court Disposition

Particulars of Claim struck out with leave to re-plead; only certain claims may proceed

Orders

  • Existing Particulars of Claim struck out
  • Claimants granted permission to re-plead their case, limited to claims not precluded by the RSA