KAREN PEGLER & Ors. v TIMOTHY BRUCE MCDONALD & Anor.

KAREN PEGLER & Ors. v TIMOTHY BRUCE MCDONALD & Anor.

The application for adjournment was refused as the medical evidence was wholly inadequate, the other grounds were irrelevant, and the trial would be fair. The Beddoe order was refused as the dispute was a beneficiary dispute, not a third party dispute. An extended civil restraint order was imposed due to the first defendant's persistent totally without merit applications.

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
01 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Probate/trusts (removal of Personal Representatives) / Interlocutory Applications (adjournment and Beddoe Order)
Outcome
Applications for adjournment and Beddoe order dismissed as totally without merit; extended civil restraint order imposed against first defendant for two years.
Legal Topics
Removal of Personal Representatives, Beddoe Orders, Adjournment of Trial, Civil Restraint Orders
Probate Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Removal of Personal Representatives Beddoe Orders Adjournment of Trial Civil Restraint Orders

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 25 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 Personal Representatives) / Interlocutory Applications (adjournment and Beddoe Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial should be adjourned on medical or other grounds
  2. 2 Whether a Beddoe order should be granted to the first defendant
  3. 3 Whether a civil restraint order should be imposed against the first defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The application for adjournment was refused as the medical evidence was wholly inadequate, the other grounds were irrelevant, and the trial would be fair. The Beddoe order was refused as the dispute was a beneficiary dispute, not a third party dispute. An extended civil restraint order was imposed due to the first defendant's persistent totally without merit applications.

Court Disposition

Applications for adjournment and Beddoe order dismissed as totally without merit; extended civil restraint order imposed against first defendant for two years.

Orders

  • Application for adjournment dismissed as totally without merit.
  • Application for Beddoe order dismissed as totally without merit.