Davidson & Anor v Seelig & Ors

Davidson & Anor v Seelig & Ors

Mr Haringman's application to re-amend his defence and bring a counterclaim was refused because the amendments were very late, lacked proper particularisation, would jeopardise the trial date, and he lacked standing to seek the relief claimed. The specific disclosure application was dismissed as most matters were not in issue and relevant documents had already been disclosed.

Parties
Claimant: Gerald Abraham Davidson; Claimant: Maxine Yvette Davidson; Defendant: Roger Hugh Knight Seelig; Defendant: Michael Haringman; Defendant: Promenade Trustee Company Limited; Defendant: The General Trust Company SA; Defendant: Ian Frederick Ledger; Defendant: Simon Crispin Groom
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application to Re Amend Defence and Counterclaim; Ruling on Specific Disclosure
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Trust Administration, Protector Powers, Removal of Trustees, Standing, Amendment of Pleadings, Disclosure
Trusts and Equity Trust Administration Protector Powers Removal of Trustees Standing Amendment of Pleadings Disclosure

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerald Abraham Davidson

Claimant

Maxine Yvette Davidson

Claimant

Roger Hugh Knight Seelig

Defendant

Michael Haringman

Defendant

Promenade Trustee Company Limited

Defendant

The General Trust Company SA

Defendant

Ian Frederick Ledger

Defendant

Simon Crispin Groom

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Application to Re Amend Defence and Counterclaim; Ruling on Specific Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Haringman should be granted permission to re-amend his defence and bring a counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether Mr Haringman has standing to seek removal and appointment of trustees and protectors
  3. 3 Whether the amendments are too late and would jeopardise the trial date

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Haringman's application to re-amend his defence and bring a counterclaim was refused because the amendments were very late, lacked proper particularisation, would jeopardise the trial date, and he lacked standing to seek the relief claimed. The specific disclosure application was dismissed as most matters were not in issue and relevant documents had already been disclosed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to re-amend defence and bring counterclaim refused
  • Specific disclosure application dismissed