MICHAEL WILSON AND PARTNERS LIMITED v JOHN FORSTER EMMOTT AND OTHERS

MICHAEL WILSON AND PARTNERS LIMITED v JOHN FORSTER EMMOTT AND OTHERS

The application to set aside or vary the ex parte order failed because the appointee was properly appointed as executor and the order was valid; the application for disclosure was premature as documents were provided shortly after service; no costs order was made as the principal relief sought was bound to fail.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Wilson and Partners Limited; First Defendant: John Forster Emmott; Second Defendant: Michael Lyndon Beverley Robinson (deceased, represented by Mark Robinson)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Post Ex Parte Application; Determination of Application to Set Aside/vary Order and for Disclosure
Outcome
application dismissed; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Substitution of Parties, Executor Representation, Ex Parte Orders, Document Disclosure, Costs
Civil Procedure Estate Litigation Substitution of Parties Executor Representation Ex Parte Orders Document Disclosure Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wilson and Partners Limited

Claimant

John Forster Emmott

First Defendant

Michael Lyndon Beverley Robinson (deceased, represented by Mark Robinson)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Post Ex Parte Application; Determination of Application to Set Aside/vary Order and for Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the ex parte order appointing Mark Robinson as representative of the estate should be set aside or varied
  2. 2 whether the claimant is entitled to disclosure of documents supporting the ex parte application
  3. 3 whether costs should be awarded to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The application to set aside or vary the ex parte order failed because the appointee was properly appointed as executor and the order was valid; the application for disclosure was premature as documents were provided shortly after service; no costs order was made as the principal relief sought was bound to fail.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; no order as to costs