In the matter of II [2018] JRC 031 (7 February 2018)

In the matter of II [2018] JRC 031 (7 February 2018)

The sons have no reasonable cause of action as any loss from the alleged invalidity of the 2008 wills or breach of promise accrues only to the first plaintiff; their claims are too remote. The fraud allegations by the first plaintiff were not sufficiently particularised and the facts pleaded were equally consistent with a simple breach of promise, not dishonesty. The Master was correct to strike out the claims and refuse further adjournments or amendments.

Citation
[2018] JRC 031
Parties
Appellant: First Plaintiff; Appellant: Second Plaintiff; Appellant: Third Plaintiff; Respondent: First Defendant; Respondent: Second Defendant (Appleby)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
07 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Master's Procedural Strike Out Orders
Outcome
appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Testamentary Capacity, Undue Influence, Legitime Rights, Negligence of Legal Advisers, Breach of Contract, Estoppel, Unjust Enrichment
Wills and Probate Civil Procedure Tort Contract Strike Out Applications Fraudulent Misrepresentation Testamentary Capacity Undue Influence +5 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Plaintiff

Appellant

Second Plaintiff

Appellant

Third Plaintiff

Appellant

First Defendant

Respondent

Second Defendant (Appleby)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Master's Procedural Strike Out Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sons (second and third plaintiffs) have a reasonable cause of action against the defendants regarding the estate of the deceased
  2. 2 Whether the first plaintiff's allegations of fraud against the first and second defendants are sufficiently particularised to proceed
  3. 3 Whether the Master erred in refusing to adjourn hearings and in striking out claims

Ratio Decidendi

The sons have no reasonable cause of action as any loss from the alleged invalidity of the 2008 wills or breach of promise accrues only to the first plaintiff; their claims are too remote. The fraud allegations by the first plaintiff were not sufficiently particularised and the facts pleaded were equally consistent with a simple breach of promise, not dishonesty. The Master was correct to strike out the claims and refuse further adjournments or amendments.

Court Disposition

appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Sons' appeal against the June judgment dismissed
  • First plaintiff's appeal against the July judgment dismissed