Andrew Frank Pitman Hubbard & Anor v Robert William Pitman Hubbard & Anor

Andrew Frank Pitman Hubbard & Anor v Robert William Pitman Hubbard & Anor

The court held that it had no jurisdiction under CPR 3.4(2) or CPR 24.2 to strike out or grant summary judgment on objections in the taking of an account under a trust, as these provisions apply to statements of case and not to objections. The claimants' objections, taken with their replies, were adequately set out in compliance with Practice Direction 40A. There was no clear evidence of abuse of process or that any objections were time-barred on a summary basis. The application was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew Frank Pitman Hubbard; Claimant: Nighat Hubbard; Defendant: Robert William Pitman Hubbard; Defendant: Ann Veronica Hubbard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Account of Trust, Proprietary Estoppel, Oral Trust, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Application, Abuse of Process, Limitation in Trust Claims
Trusts Property Law Civil Procedure Account of Trust Proprietary Estoppel Oral Trust Summary Judgment Strike Out Application +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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Frank Pitman Hubbard

Claimant

Nighat Hubbard

Claimant

Robert William Pitman Hubbard

Defendant

Ann Veronica Hubbard

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to strike out or grant summary judgment on objections in the taking of an account under a trust
  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 held that it had no jurisdiction under CPR 3.4(2) or CPR 24.2 to strike out or grant summary judgment on objections in the taking of an account under a trust, as these provisions apply to statements of case and not to objections. The claimants' objections, taken with their replies, were adequately set out in compliance with Practice Direction 40A. There was no clear evidence of abuse of process or that any objections were time-barred on a summary basis. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed