Solland & Anor v Watkins & Anor [2021] EWHC 3447 (Ch) (22 December 2021)

Solland & Anor v Watkins & Anor [2021] EWHC 3447 (Ch) (22 December 2021)

The Mutual Indemnity, properly construed, waived all claims whatsoever relating directly or indirectly to the property and its redevelopment, including the claimants' claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and dishonest assistance. These claims were known to the claimants at the time of the waiver and were not expressly reserved. Therefore, there is no serious issue to be tried, and the court has no jurisdiction over the Estate. The failure to disclose the Mutual Indemnity was a serious breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure, as it was material to the merits threshold for service out.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3447 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Abner Solland; Claimant: Grazyna Solland; Defendant: Michael Watkins; Defendant: The Estate of Michael Vivian Shine
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Jurisdictional Challenge to Service Out of Jurisdiction and Setting Aside of Claim Form
Outcome
Claim form and order for service out set aside; court declines jurisdiction over the Estate.
Legal Topics
Waiver and Release, Jurisdiction, Full and Frank Disclosure, Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Dishonest Assistance, Conspiracy
Contract Law Civil Procedure Equity Waiver and Release Jurisdiction Full and Frank Disclosure Fraud Breach of Fiduciary Duty +2 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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abner Solland

Claimant

Grazyna Solland

Claimant

Michael Watkins

Defendant

The Estate of Michael Vivian Shine

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Jurisdictional Challenge to Service Out of Jurisdiction and Setting Aside of Claim Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Mutual Indemnity (waiver) bars the claimants' claims against the Estate of Michael Shine
  2. 2 Whether the claimants failed in their duty of full and frank disclosure when seeking permission to serve out of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried justifying service out of jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Mutual Indemnity, properly construed, waived all claims whatsoever relating directly or indirectly to the property and its redevelopment, including the claimants' claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and dishonest assistance. These claims were known to the claimants at the time of the waiver and were not expressly reserved. Therefore, there is no serious issue to be tried, and the court has no jurisdiction over the Estate. The failure to disclose the Mutual Indemnity was a serious breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure, as it was material to the merits threshold for service out.

Court Disposition

Claim form and order for service out set aside; court declines jurisdiction over the Estate.

Orders

  • The claim form and service out of jurisdiction on the Estate are set aside.
  • The court declines jurisdiction over the Estate of Michael Shine.