Walsh v Walsh & Ors

Walsh v Walsh & Ors

The claim against RB has no real prospect of success because RB's actions did not cause any loss to the claimants; only the true beneficial owner could transfer the beneficial interest, and the re-designation of accounts pursuant to a fraudulent letter was ineffective. The proceedings are also an abuse of process due to failure to comply with mandatory Aldi guidelines and because the litigation vexes parties who had settled the same issues.

Parties
Claimant: Sharon Lesley Walsh; Claimant: Scott Samuel Walsh; Defendant: Redmayne-Bentley LLP; Defendant: Redmayne (Nominees) Ltd; Defendant: Redmayne Bentley (A Firm); Defendant: Ian Hooper; Defendant: Harvey John Hall; Defendant: Joanne Hilary Raines
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment and Strike Out Application
Outcome
Claim summarily dismissed and struck out as abuse of process
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Abuse of Process, Beneficial Ownership, Trustee Duties, Estoppel by Contract, Mitigation of Loss
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Summary Judgment Strike Out Abuse of Process Beneficial Ownership Trustee Duties Estoppel by Contract +1 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharon Lesley Walsh

Claimant

Scott Samuel Walsh

Claimant

Redmayne-Bentley LLP

Defendant

Redmayne (Nominees) Ltd

Defendant

Redmayne Bentley (A Firm)

Defendant

Ian Hooper

Defendant

Harvey John Hall

Defendant

Joanne Hilary Raines

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment and Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against RB has real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings are an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether RB's actions caused loss to the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The claim against RB has no real prospect of success because RB's actions did not cause any loss to the claimants; only the true beneficial owner could transfer the beneficial interest, and the re-designation of accounts pursuant to a fraudulent letter was ineffective. The proceedings are also an abuse of process due to failure to comply with mandatory Aldi guidelines and because the litigation vexes parties who had settled the same issues.

Court Disposition

Claim summarily dismissed and struck out as abuse of process

Orders

  • Summary judgment granted in favour of RB, Hall, and Raines
  • Claim against RB struck out as abuse of process