In the matter of II [2016] JRC 116 (07 July 2016)

In the matter of II [2016] JRC 116 (07 July 2016)

The allegations of fraud and dishonesty made by the first plaintiff against the first and second defendants are not sufficiently particularised and are at best consistent with breach of promise, undue influence, or negligence. The pleadings do not set out primary facts to support an inference of fraud or dishonesty. The first plaintiff has had ample opportunity and legal advice to particularise her case and has failed to do so. Allowing further amendment would not advance the case and would cause further delay and prejudice. Accordingly, the allegations of fraud and dishonesty are struck out.

Citation
[2016] JRC 116
Parties
Plaintiff: First Plaintiff; Plaintiff: Second Plaintiff; Plaintiff: Third Plaintiff; Defendant: First Defendant; Defendant: Second Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
07 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Pleadings
Outcome
Application granted in part; allegations of fraud and dishonesty struck out.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Pleading Fraud, Particularisation of Fraud, Undue Influence, Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Promise
Civil Procedure Trusts and Estates Strike Out Applications Pleading Fraud Particularisation of Fraud Undue Influence Unjust Enrichment Breach of Promise

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Second Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Third Plaintiff

Plaintiff

First Defendant

Defendant

Second Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first plaintiff's allegations of fraud and dishonesty against the first and second defendants are sufficiently particularised to proceed to trial
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings disclose a cause of action in fraud or are merely consistent with negligence or breach of promise
  3. 3 Whether the first plaintiff should be granted a further opportunity to amend her pleadings to particularise fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The allegations of fraud and dishonesty made by the first plaintiff against the first and second defendants are not sufficiently particularised and are at best consistent with breach of promise, undue influence, or negligence. The pleadings do not set out primary facts to support an inference of fraud or dishonesty. The first plaintiff has had ample opportunity and legal advice to particularise her case and has failed to do so. Allowing further amendment would not advance the case and would cause further delay and prejudice. Accordingly, the allegations of fraud and dishonesty are struck out.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; allegations of fraud and dishonesty struck out.

Orders

  • Allegations of fraud and dishonesty against the first and second defendants are struck out from the pleadings.
  • The first plaintiff is not permitted a further opportunity to amend her pleadings to particularise fraud.