Ward & Ors v Savill

Ward & Ors v Savill

The declaratory judgments obtained by the Claimants in the 2015 Proceedings do not have such legal effect as to allow the Claimants to found their proprietary claim against Mrs Savill without re-pleading and proving the facts or matters relied upon in the earlier proceedings, because the 2018 Judgment/Order was not a judgment in rem and does not bind Mrs Savill, who was not a party to those proceedings.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Ward; Claimant: Christopher Carpmael; Claimants: Further Claimants listed in Annex 1 to the Claim Form; Defendant: Katharine Anne Savill
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Preliminary Issue Determination
Outcome
Preliminary issue determined in favour of the Defendant; Claimants must re-plead and prove their case.
Legal Topics
Declaratory Judgments, Tracing Claims, Judgments in Rem Vs in Personam, Default Judgments, Beneficial Ownership
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Declaratory Judgments Tracing Claims Judgments in Rem Vs in Personam Default Judgments Beneficial Ownership

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ward

Claimant

Christopher Carpmael

Claimant

Further Claimants listed in Annex 1 to the Claim Form

Claimants

Katharine Anne Savill

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Preliminary Issue Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether declaratory judgments obtained in previous proceedings can be relied upon as proof of beneficial interest in subsequent proprietary claims against a non-party to the original proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the 2018 Judgment/Order was a judgment in rem binding on third parties, including Mrs Savill

Ratio Decidendi

The declaratory judgments obtained by the Claimants in the 2015 Proceedings do not have such legal effect as to allow the Claimants to found their proprietary claim against Mrs Savill without re-pleading and proving the facts or matters relied upon in the earlier proceedings, because the 2018 Judgment/Order was not a judgment in rem and does not bind Mrs Savill, who was not a party to those proceedings.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issue determined in favour of the Defendant; Claimants must re-plead and prove their case.

Orders

  • The declaratory judgments obtained by the Claimants in Claim CL-2015-000136 do not allow the Claimants to found their proprietary claim against Mrs Savill without re-pleading and proving the facts or matters relied upon in the earlier proceedings.