Howard v Howard -Lawson

Howard v Howard -Lawson

There was no evidence of undue influence or procedural unfairness; Mr Howard received independent legal advice, consented to the partition, and all claims relating to trust assets or compensation vested in the trustee-in-bankruptcy and were disposed of by sale. Claims are barred by laches and statute, and findings of fact by the trial judge are not open to appellate interference.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Philip William Howard; Defendant/respondent: Sir John Howard-Lawson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Partition of Trust Property, Breach of Trust, Bankruptcy, Fiduciary Duties, Statute of Limitations, Laches
Trusts and Estates Property Law Undue Influence Partition of Trust Property Breach of Trust Bankruptcy Fiduciary Duties Statute of Limitations +1 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip William Howard

Claimant/appellant

Sir John Howard-Lawson

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the execution of the powers deed and partition were procured by undue influence
  2. 2 Whether the partition and sale of trust assets were properly conducted
  3. 3 Whether claims for breach of trust or compensation survived bankruptcy and sale

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of undue influence or procedural unfairness; Mr Howard received independent legal advice, consented to the partition, and all claims relating to trust assets or compensation vested in the trustee-in-bankruptcy and were disposed of by sale. Claims are barred by laches and statute, and findings of fact by the trial judge are not open to appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed