Gloria Ngozi Haastrup and Another v John Adewale Haastrup and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Master Matthews |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 3311 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC-2015-001372 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 21 December 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 3311 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Master Matthews
Case No: HC-2015-001372
Daniel Burton (instructed by Penningtons Manches LLP) for the Claimants
Michael Biggs (instructed by Alpha Rocks Solicitors) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 28–29 September 2016
Judgment Approved
Introduction
This is my judgment on two applications before the court. One is made by the Defendants by notice dated 19 February 2016 (but sealed by the Court only on 25 February 2016) to strike out the claim or alternatively for summary judgment. It is supported by the witness statement of Isi Inyang dated 19 February 2016 and a witness statement of the First Defendant dated 9 March 2016. The second is made by the Claimants by notice dated 4 March 2016 for an order appointing the Claimants under the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 116, as personal representatives of the estate of the late Captain Israel Ademola Haastrup ("Captain Haastrup" or "the deceased"), limited to a grant ad colligenda bona or ad litem, alternatively for an order joining the estate of Captain Haastrup to the proceedings. It is supported by the witness statement of the First Claimant dated 4 March 2016 and the witness statement of the Second Claimant dated 8 March 2016.
The Claim
These applications are made in the context of a claim commenced by claim form dated 2 April 2015, seeking an injunction against the Defendants from dealing further with the proceeds of the sale of property known as Westrock Motel, Stonehouse Lane, Purfleet RM19 1NS, and an order that the First Defendant account with respect to his dealings with the affairs of the estate of Captain Haastrup. The Particulars of Claim were not served with the claim form but are dated 30 April 2015. The Defence of both Defendants is dated 19 May 2015. On 2 April 2015, on the application of the Claimants, Barling J granted a without notice freezing injunction against both Defendants, in respect principally of a cheque (or its proceeds) sent from the Treasury Solicitors to the Defendants' solicitors in the sum of £282,474.09. As will be seen, that freezing injunction remains in force.
This claim is only one of several that have been launched between the same or related parties, both in this country and in Nigeria, since the death of Captain Haastrup in England on 8 October 2012. They all concern aspects of his large estate which even today remains without any personal representative to administer it. Several were brought in the Chancery Division of the High Court, and after agreement with other masters I became the allocated master for all of these.
The parties
As to substantive claims to the estate, the First Claimant claims to be the widow of Captain Haastrup (but is not the mother of the First Defendant). If so, she would be a primary beneficiary on Captain Haastrup's intestacy. The First Defendant says she is not the deceased's widow, because (he says) she was divorced from him at the time of his death. The Second Claimant is an admitted son of Captain Haastrup, born and brought up in London. A document claimed to be a will of Captain Haastrup dated 18 July 2007 exists. Under that will the Second Claimant and the First Claimant's two minor children (but not the First Claimant) would be primary beneficiaries. But its validity is being challenged by the First Claimant in Nigerian proceedings.
Turning now to the Defendants, the First Defendant also claims to be a son, but also the eldest child, of Captain Haastrup. However, the paternity of the First Defendant is in issue. The Second Defendant is a company incorporated in England by Captain Haastrup as a vehicle to hold property. Put shortly, this claim alleges that the First Defendant has without authority attempted to make away with the proceeds of sale of a property owned by the Second Defendant.
The Second Defendant
The Second Defendant was struck off the register on 1 July 2003, apparently because of a failure to file accounts. At that date Captain Haastrup was the sole director and shareholder, and the First Claimant was the company secretary. The company owned Westrock Motel. When the Second Defendant ceased to exist, this property therefore devolved on the Crown as bona vacantia. It was indeed sold by instruction of the Treasury Solicitor on 12 July 2012 for £347,000. As already noted, Captain Haastrup died on 8 October of that year. On about 30 August 2013, the First Defendant applied to the Companies Court in London for the restoration of the Second Defendant to the register. The application was not finally disposed of until March the following year.
In September 2013 the First Defendant filed or caused to be filed at Companies House forms AP01 and AP03. These two forms purported to record the appointment to the Second Defendant on 1 March 2013 (by the former) of the First Defendant as a director, and (by the latter) of a Mr Obeng as company secretary. On about 28 November 2013 the First Defendant filed or caused to be filed forms TM01 and TM02, and an annual return. The Form TM01 purported to record the termination of the deceased's directorship as at the date of his death, and the Form TM02 purported to record the termination of the First Claimant's secretaryship as at 1 March 2013. The annual return was dated 4 October 2013. It purported to record the registration of the transfer of the sole share in the Second Defendant from Captain Haastrup to the First Defendant on 1 March 2013.
The Nigerian Letters of administration
On 20 January 2014, before the application for restoration to the register was heard, the First Defendant had obtained letters of administration in the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Nigeria, to the estate of the deceased, on the footing that he had died intestate. The Second Defendant was ultimately restored to the register on 18 March 2014, by order of Deputy Registrar Briggs (as he then was), made without a hearing. The evidence in support of the application, and the order made, both recited that the First Defendant was the administrator of the estate of Captain Haastrup, and a member and a director of the Second Defendant. On 20 June 2014 those Nigerian letters of administration were resealed in the Leeds District Probate Registry.
However, on 20 July 2014 the First Defendant had himself been injuncted by a Nigerian court (the Federal Capital Territory High Court) to restrain him from relying on the letters of administration or from "parading himself as in any way as the Administrator" of the deceased's estate "within or outside Nigeria". This injunction had been granted pending the will litigation in Nigeria. Moreover, the Leeds District Probate Registry, having become aware of the Nigerian litigation, had by letter of 27 August 2014 informed the First Defendant that it was recalling the resealed grant, pending investigation. Thereafter, on 12 February 2015 the Leeds District Probate Registry cancelled the resealed grant in this jurisdiction. I record also that the First Defendant's appeal against the imposition of the Nigerian injunction was dismissed, although there may be a dispute between the parties as to exactly when this took place.
Procedure
Coming back to this claim, the order of Barling J of 2 April 2015 came back before Newey J on 8 and again on 9 April 2015. On each occasion the order was varied to extend time for compliance by the Defendants with the disclosure aspects. On 10 April the Defendants issued an application notice seeking the discharge of the order. On 16 April Mr John Jarvis QC, sitting as a deputy judge, heard and dismissed the Defendants' application notice to discharge the injunction, and ordered that it continue until trial or further order, with certain variations. The deputy judge ordered that only £282,000 need be preserved.
The Particulars of Claim were served on 30 April 2015, and the Defence of both Defendants on 19 May 2015. The Defendants sought permission to appeal and a stay of execution in respect of the order of Mr Jarvis QC. On 21 May 2015 Lewison LJ refused permission to appeal. This application was renewed orally before, but dismissed by, Beatson LJ on 10 December 2015. In the meantime, on 9 November 2015, the Claimants issued an application notice to commit the First Defendant for contempt. This was adjourned by Nugee J on 21 December 2015 to the new year. The Defendants issued a fresh application on 7 January 2016 to discharge the freezing injunction, but this was dismissed by Newey J on 14 January 2016. On 25 February, apparently following comments by Newey J and also my own judgment in Haastrup v Okorie [2016] EWHC 12 (Ch), the Defendants issued the present application to strike out the claim or for summary judgment on it. Thereafter on 4 March 2016 the Claimants issued their own application for the limited appointment of a personal representative under s 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
All three applications (committal, strike-out and s 116) came before Asplin J on 10 May 2016. She adjourned the first until the second and third should have been disposed of, and adjourned the second and third to be heard by me. I heard them on 28 and 29 September 2016. Daniel Burton of counsel appeared for the Claimants. Michael Biggs of counsel appeared for the Defendants. I am grateful to them both. I am sorry for the delay in producing this written judgment.
On the two applications before me, the Defendants argued that the Claimants had launched these proceedings on behalf of the estate of the deceased, but that as they had no grant of administration to them at that time, they had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sarah Gilpin and Others v Howard Legg
...exist or was not complete at the date that the claim form was issued. Other authorities say that it cannot: see egHaastrup v Hasstrup [2016] EWHC 3311 (Ch), [46], where some of these authorities are discussed. In the context of a notice to quit, however, it appears that authority is in favo......
-
The Football Association Premier League Ltd v Patrick O'Donovan and Another
...on behalf of the estate of a deceased person, and where the defect is less serious. In the recent decision in Haastrup v Haastrup [2016] EWHC 3311 (Ch) Master Matthews had to consider the scope of the court's power where the claimant lacked title to sue at the time the claim was issued. Hi......