KAREN PEGLER & Ors v TIMOTHY BRUCE MCDONALD & Anor

KAREN PEGLER & Ors v TIMOTHY BRUCE MCDONALD & Anor

The defendant's informal application was automatically dismissed for procedural non-compliance, but even if considered, there was no basis for summary dismissal, recusal, or adjournment. The claim disclosed a cause of action, required a trial, and no real prospect of success in the defendant's application was shown. No fair-minded observer would find a real possibility of bias, and no sufficient grounds for changing the trial date or time were established.

Parties
Claimant: Karen Pegler; Claimant: Tamara Sarah Stringer; Claimant: Serena Juliet Gahagan Hulme; Claimant: Jeremy Edwin Stanley Gahagan; Defendant: Timothy Bruce McDonald; Defendant: Hugh James Trust Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Probate/trusts (removal of Executor) / Ruling on Informal Applications Prior to Trial
Outcome
All applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Removal of Executor, Summary Dismissal, Recusal of Judge, Adjournment of Trial
Probate Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Removal of Executor Summary Dismissal Recusal of Judge Adjournment of Trial

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 35 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karen Pegler

Claimant

Tamara Sarah Stringer

Claimant

Serena Juliet Gahagan Hulme

Claimant

Jeremy Edwin Stanley Gahagan

Claimant

Timothy Bruce McDonald

Defendant

Hugh James Trust Corporation Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/trusts (removal of Executor) / Ruling on Informal Applications Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be summarily dismissed
  2. 2 Whether the judge should recuse himself for bias
  3. 3 Whether the trial date or time should be changed

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's informal application was automatically dismissed for procedural non-compliance, but even if considered, there was no basis for summary dismissal, recusal, or adjournment. The claim disclosed a cause of action, required a trial, and no real prospect of success in the defendant's application was shown. No fair-minded observer would find a real possibility of bias, and no sufficient grounds for changing the trial date or time were established.

Court Disposition

All applications dismissed