Hubbard & Anor v Hubbard & Anor [2024] EWHC 3123 (Ch) (04 November 2024)

Hubbard & Anor v Hubbard & Anor [2024] EWHC 3123 (Ch) (04 November 2024)

The court has no jurisdiction under CPR 3.4(2) or 24.3 to strike out or summarily dispose of objections to an account; the claimants' objections are sufficiently clear and comply with Practice Direction 40A; there is no evidence of abuse of process or basis for summary disposal; limitation issues are not amenable to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3123 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Frank Pitman Hubbard; Claimant: Nighat Hubbard; Defendant: Robert William Pitman Hubbard; Defendant: Ann Veronica Hubbard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Chancery Trust Dispute / Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment on Objections to Account
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Taking of Account, Trustee Duties, Proprietary Estoppel, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Abuse of Process, Limitation in Trust Claims
Trusts Property Law Civil Procedure Taking of Account Trustee Duties Proprietary Estoppel Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Frank Pitman Hubbard

Claimant

Nighat Hubbard

Claimant

Robert William Pitman Hubbard

Defendant

Ann Veronica Hubbard

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Trust Dispute / Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment on Objections to Account

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to strike out or summarily dispose of objections to an account under CPR 3.4(2) or 24.3
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' objections to the account comply with Practice Direction 40A
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' conduct amounts to an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no jurisdiction under CPR 3.4(2) or 24.3 to strike out or summarily dispose of objections to an account; the claimants' objections are sufficiently clear and comply with Practice Direction 40A; there is no evidence of abuse of process or basis for summary disposal; limitation issues are not amenable to summary determination at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • First defendant's application to strike out or for summary judgment is dismissed.