Hollis & Ors v Rolfe & Ors

Hollis & Ors v Rolfe & Ors

The Bishop had no beneficial interest under English law as the 1956 Constitution and Canon Law did not alter the original 1946 trust. The transfer of West Lodge was not a breach of trust as it was not shown to be an asset of the Community at the time of transfer. The sale of the Property to Mr Rolfe was not a breach of trust, self-dealing, or procured by undue influence; it was properly advised, valued, and executed. There was no dishonesty or unconscionability to support claims of knowing assistance or knowing receipt. The claims to set aside the transfers failed.

Parties
Claimant: The Right Reverend Crispian Hollis, Bishop of Portsmouth; Claimant: Georgina Grundy-Parker (Sister Scholastica); Claimant: Edna Grace Fewtrell (Sister Maura Mary); Defendant: Edwin Douglas Rolfe; Defendant: Vivienne Amy Elizabeth Rolfe; Defendant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust, Self Dealing, Knowing Receipt, Knowing Assistance, Undue Influence, Charitable Trusts, Canon Law, Cy Près Doctrine
Trusts Charity Law Property Law Breach of Trust Self Dealing Knowing Receipt Knowing Assistance Undue Influence +3 more

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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Right Reverend Crispian Hollis, Bishop of Portsmouth

Claimant

Georgina Grundy-Parker (Sister Scholastica)

Claimant

Edna Grace Fewtrell (Sister Maura Mary)

Claimant

Edwin Douglas Rolfe

Defendant

Vivienne Amy Elizabeth Rolfe

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of West Lodge and Penton Lodge (the Property) constituted a breach of trust or self-dealing by the trustees.
  2. 2 Whether the transactions were void or voidable due to undue influence, knowing assistance, or knowing receipt.
  3. 3 Whether the Bishop had locus standi to bring the claim as beneficiary under Canon Law or the 1956 Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Bishop had no beneficial interest under English law as the 1956 Constitution and Canon Law did not alter the original 1946 trust. The transfer of West Lodge was not a breach of trust as it was not shown to be an asset of the Community at the time of transfer. The sale of the Property to Mr Rolfe was not a breach of trust, self-dealing, or procured by undue influence; it was properly advised, valued, and executed. There was no dishonesty or unconscionability to support claims of knowing assistance or knowing receipt. The claims to set aside the transfers failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claims to recover West Lodge and the Property are dismissed.
  • No order setting aside the transfers or imposing a constructive trust.