In the matter of II [2016] JRC 106 (15 June 2016)

In the matter of II [2016] JRC 106 (15 June 2016)

The claims of the second and third plaintiffs disclose no reasonable cause of action as any loss or entitlement to the estate is that of the first plaintiff, not the second and third plaintiffs. No breach of duty or contract, nor any loss, has been established by the second and third plaintiffs. Any claim in negligence against the second defendant is not sustainable as the only possible beneficiaries are the first plaintiff and first defendant. Any new claim would be prescribed by limitation. The only arguable claim is for the return of personal belongings, which is allowed to proceed.

Citation
[2016] JRC 106
Parties
First Plaintiff: A; Second Plaintiff: K; Third Plaintiff: L; First Defendant: H; Second Defendant: Appleby
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
15 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Claims of the second and third plaintiffs struck out except for claim for return of personal belongings.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Testamentary Capacity, Negligence of Solicitors, Estoppel, Emotional Distress Claims, Limitation of Actions
Succession Law Civil Procedure Tort Law Strike Out Applications Testamentary Capacity Negligence of Solicitors Estoppel Emotional Distress Claims +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

First Plaintiff

K

Second Plaintiff

L

Third Plaintiff

H

First Defendant

Appleby

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims of the second and third plaintiffs disclose any reasonable cause of action against the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the claims should be struck out under Rule 6/13(1)(a) of the Royal Court Rules 2004
  3. 3 Whether the second and third plaintiffs have suffered any loss or breach of duty by the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The claims of the second and third plaintiffs disclose no reasonable cause of action as any loss or entitlement to the estate is that of the first plaintiff, not the second and third plaintiffs. No breach of duty or contract, nor any loss, has been established by the second and third plaintiffs. Any claim in negligence against the second defendant is not sustainable as the only possible beneficiaries are the first plaintiff and first defendant. Any new claim would be prescribed by limitation. The only arguable claim is for the return of personal belongings, which is allowed to proceed.

Court Disposition

Claims of the second and third plaintiffs struck out except for claim for return of personal belongings.

Orders

  • Claims of the second and third plaintiffs against the first and second defendants are struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, save for the claim for return of personal belongings.
  • Second and third plaintiffs to communicate in writing to the first defendant what belongings have not been returned within 14 days; first defendant to respond within 14 days.