Howard v Howard - Lawson (Rev 1)

Howard v Howard - Lawson (Rev 1)

The evidence did not establish undue influence, fraud, or breach of trust by Sir John or others. Mr Howard was independently advised, consented to the Partition and related deeds, and claims are barred by laches and limitation. Most claims lack evidential basis or legal standing due to assignment of interests and bankruptcy. Only the claim to Conniscliffe chief rents succeeds as they were not allocated and remain held on trust for Mr Howard.

Parties
Claimant: Philip William Howard; Defendant: Sir John Howard-Lawson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed except for Conniscliffe chief rents.
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Breach of Trust, Partition of Trust Property, Trustee Duties, Limitation and Laches, Assignment of Interests, Accounting, Conversion, Fiduciary Duty
Trusts Property Equity Undue Influence Breach of Trust Partition of Trust Property Trustee Duties Limitation and Laches +4 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip William Howard

Claimant

Sir John Howard-Lawson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Disentailing Deed and Powers Deed were procured by undue influence
  2. 2 Whether the Partition was inequitable or fraudulent
  3. 3 Whether Sir John breached trust duties in relation to loans, assets, and chattels

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish undue influence, fraud, or breach of trust by Sir John or others. Mr Howard was independently advised, consented to the Partition and related deeds, and claims are barred by laches and limitation. Most claims lack evidential basis or legal standing due to assignment of interests and bankruptcy. Only the claim to Conniscliffe chief rents succeeds as they were not allocated and remain held on trust for Mr Howard.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed except for Conniscliffe chief rents.

Orders

  • Sir John to convey Conniscliffe ground rents to Mr Howard; costs of conveyance to be borne by Sir John, or equally if dispute arises.
  • All other claims dismissed.