Creggy v Barnett & anr [2018] WTLR 35

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2018 #171

In 1998 the appellant solicitor transferred $1.2m without his clients’ knowledge and authority and in breach of fiduciary duty to the respondents. Proceedings were issued 
in 2012. The appellant argued the claim was statute-barred pursuant to s21(3) Limitation 
Act 1980. The respondents relied upon a letter written by the appellant in 2006 as 
constituting an acknowledgement of the claim for the purposes of s29(5) of the Act, which provides:

‘where any right of action has accrued to recover… any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim… and the person li...

Henchley & ors v Thompson [2018] WTLR 1289

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2018 #170

The claimants were the beneficiaries of two trusts created by the late WCC Henchley (‘Settlor’). The NE Henchley Trust (‘First Trust’), dated 1 September 1960, provided for the trust assets to be held upon trust for the Settlor’s wife for life or until remarriage with remainder for such of his children as were then living and if more than one in equal shares. The trust assets, which once included bank accounts and a portfolio of investments, now consisted of the residence of the Settlor’s wife at 395 Cockfosters Road, Whaddon Lodge (‘Property’). By a Deed of Appointment dated 20 November...

Trilogy Management Ltd v Harcus Sinclair [2016] EWHC 170 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2017 #168

This was an application by the defendant firm of solicitors (D) for the particulars of claim and reply to be struck out on the ground that they disclose no answer to the limitation defence or summary judgment dismissing the entirety of the claim on the basis that the claimant (C) has no real prospect of success because the claim is statute barred.

The proceedings arose out of a family dispute concerning a charitable trust (F) established by the deceased (OM). By his will OM left his shares in a Jersey investment company (JY) and in the trustee company of F (YT) to the executors an...

High Commissioner for Pakistan in the United Kingdom v Prince Mukkaram Jah, His Exalted Highness the 8th Nizam of Hyderabad [2016] EWHC 1465 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2016 #165

The underlying claim concerned monies deposited in a new bank account with the National Westminster Bank (the bank) in the name of Mr Rahimtoola, the High Commissioner for Pakistan in London between 16 and 20 September 1948 (the Fund). The monies deposited had belonged to the state of Hyderabad/the 7th Nizam (Hyderabad’s absolute monarch at the time). The state of Hyderabad had been annexed to India between 13 and 18 September 2016. The underlying claim had been brought by Pakistan against the bank. A number of other defendants claiming an interest in the fund had been joined. Consequent...

Barnett v Creggy [2014] EWHC 3080 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2016 #156

This was a claim for an account and associated enquiries and for equitable compensation brought by Jeffrey and Peter Barnett (the claimants) against their former solicitor Stuart Creggy (Mr Creggy). The claimants were entrepreneurs in the restaurant business. Mr Creggy’s practice consisted of establishing offshore companies for clients and providing services to those clients in respect of depositing, investing and withdrawing funds held in those companies. Mr Creggy ceased to be a solicitor in 1998, but continued to provide those services until 2002.

The claimants were clien...

Limitation: Let sleeping dogs lie

Matthew Collingwood-Cooper examines a recent judgment of note for parties to adjudication ‘Often, after an adjudication neither party will be fully satisfied but generally will tacitly accept the result – as long as the other is willing to do so. However, expecting the parties to formally agree this may be wishful thinking.’On 17 June 2015 …
This post is only available to members.

King & anr v Gershon Robertson (St Vincent and the Grenadines) [2014] UKPC 34

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | June 2015 #150

The appeal arose out of a disputed claim to land.

In 1856 or 1857 W, who had been seised of land in fee simple, died. His will set out to leave a life interest in the land to his widow and thereafter to his four named children and after them to five named grandchildren. One of those grandchildren had (at least) two sons, E and B.

The respondent, G, was the grandson of B.

The appellants, K and R, derived their title from the other son E. In 1947, E had made a will asserting that he was the freehold owner of the land, it having devolved upon him as the heir at law of W...

Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria [2014] UKSC 10

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | June 2014 #140

In connection with a transaction dating back to 1986 the respondent paid $6,520,190 to a solicitor in England to be held in trust on terms that it should not be released until certain funds were made available to him in Nigeria. The solicitor pocketed $500,000 and, in fraudulent breach of trust, paid out the balance to the appellant’s account with Midland Bank in London. It was alleged that the appellant was a party to the fraud. The respondent obtained permission to serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction and an application was made to set aside that permission.

Supperstone J ...

Limitation: Stop the clock?

Sarah Carmichael discusses limitation and adjudication ‘Limitation is not ordinarily a concern at the outset of adjudication but the limitation bar might descend to block later referral of the underlying dispute to a court or arbitrator for final determination.’The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the Act) introduced adjudication as an expedient method to …
This post is only available to members.

Limitation: Challenging cases

Joanna Ludlam and Ben Ko consider recent guidance on limitation and judicial review claims ‘It is clear that the mischief the majority sought to guard against was instances of individuals seeking to avoid the real substance of regulatory decisions against them by making applications for judicial review to challenge such decisions on a procedural basis.’ …
This post is only available to members.