Fisher and Anor v Walker [2022] JRC 201 (29 September 2022)

Fisher and Anor v Walker [2022] JRC 201 (29 September 2022)

The defendant voluntarily agreed to account for lifetime gifts and did not provide evidence of any error or supervening event that would justify varying the consent orders. The inability to reach settlement or the plaintiffs' conduct was foreseeable and does not constitute a significant change of circumstance. Public interest requires parties to adhere to agreements resolving interlocutory disputes. The application to vary the orders and elect to rester sur ses avances was refused.

Citation
[2022] JRC 201
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiffs (siblings of defendant); Defendant: Defendant (sibling, executrix)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
29 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Probate Dispute / Post Interlocutory Application; Application to Vary Consent Orders and Consequential Orders
Outcome
Application refused; orders to pay into court and comply with previous orders affirmed; costs awarded to plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Variation of Consent Orders, Executor Removal, Rapport À La Masse, Rester Sur Ses Avances, Interlocutory Orders, Costs
Probate Succession Civil Procedure Variation of Consent Orders Executor Removal Rapport À La Masse Rester Sur Ses Avances Interlocutory Orders +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 1 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs (siblings of defendant)

Plaintiff

Defendant (sibling, executrix)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Dispute / Post Interlocutory Application; Application to Vary Consent Orders and Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant can vary or withdraw from a consent order to account for lifetime gifts (rapport à la masse) and elect to rester sur ses avances after agreeing otherwise
  2. 2 Whether there is a supervening event or error justifying variation of the consent orders of 4th April 2022 and 14th July 2022
  3. 3 Whether consequential orders relating to payment into court and executor appointment should be varied

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant voluntarily agreed to account for lifetime gifts and did not provide evidence of any error or supervening event that would justify varying the consent orders. The inability to reach settlement or the plaintiffs' conduct was foreseeable and does not constitute a significant change of circumstance. Public interest requires parties to adhere to agreements resolving interlocutory disputes. The application to vary the orders and elect to rester sur ses avances was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused; orders to pay into court and comply with previous orders affirmed; costs awarded to plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay into court the sum required by paragraph 2 of the Act of Court of 14th July 2022 within 21 days.
  • If payment not made, specified paragraphs of defendant's answer to be struck out and judgment entered for plaintiffs regarding removal of defendant as executrix.