McStravick v Montgomery & Ors [2026] NICh 1 (13 January 2026)

McStravick v Montgomery & Ors [2026] NICh 1 (13 January 2026)

Neither the inherent jurisdiction of the court, nor Order 1 Rule 1A, nor both together, provide the court with power to compel parties to hold a joint consultation; the rules only permit the court to invite parties to ADR, not to direct it. The Master erred in principle by ordering a compulsory joint consultation.

Citation
[2026] NICh 1
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Shauna McStravick Trustee of the Estate of Denise Montgomery (A Bankrupt); First Respondent: Denise Montgomery; Second Respondent: The Personal Representatives of the Estate of Robert Montgomery (Deceased); Third Respondent/appellant: Ryan Montgomery
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
13 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (chancery Division, Bankruptcy Proceedings) / Appeal From Case Management Order of Master Kelly Dated 7 November 2025
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; order for compulsory joint consultation set aside; order for third respondent to file affidavit affirmed.
Legal Topics
Case Management Powers, Inherent Jurisdiction, Alternative Dispute Resolution (adr), Appellate Review
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Case Management Powers Inherent Jurisdiction Alternative Dispute Resolution (adr) Appellate Review

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shauna McStravick Trustee of the Estate of Denise Montgomery (A Bankrupt)

Applicant/respondent

Denise Montgomery

First Respondent

The Personal Representatives of the Estate of Robert Montgomery (Deceased)

Second Respondent

Ryan Montgomery

Third Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (chancery Division, Bankruptcy Proceedings) / Appeal From Case Management Order of Master Kelly Dated 7 November 2025

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has power to direct parties to hold a joint consultation in bankruptcy proceedings
  2. 2 Whether such power arises under inherent jurisdiction, Order 1 Rule 1A, or both

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the inherent jurisdiction of the court, nor Order 1 Rule 1A, nor both together, provide the court with power to compel parties to hold a joint consultation; the rules only permit the court to invite parties to ADR, not to direct it. The Master erred in principle by ordering a compulsory joint consultation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; order for compulsory joint consultation set aside; order for third respondent to file affidavit affirmed.

Orders

  • Order directing parties to hold a joint consultation is set aside.
  • Order requiring third respondent to file and serve a replying affidavit is affirmed.