Mr Robert Hurst v Mrs Evelyn Green
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Mellor |
| Judgment Date | 15 November 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 2895 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. BR-2017-001525 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
In the Matter of the Extended Civil Restraint Order Dated 28 th May 2021 Made Against Mr Robert Hurst
And in the Matter of Mr Hurst's Renewed Application for Permission to Make a Series of Applications
[2022] EWHC 2895 (Ch)
Mr Justice Mellor
CLAIM NO. BR-2017-001525
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
INSOLVENCY & COMPANIES LIST (ChD)
The Rolls Building
7 Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane, London
EC4A 1NL
Dealt with on the papers
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
COVID-19: This judgment was handed down remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email. It will also be released for publication on the National Archive website. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be Tuesday 15 th November 2022 at 2pm.
Introduction
This judgment concerns another series of attempts by the Applicant, Mr Robert Alfred Hurst (‘Mr Hurst’), for permission to make the following series of applications:
i) To review, pursuant to s.375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986, the decisions of Fancourt J. dated 5 February 2020 and 28 May 2021;
ii) Annulment, pursuant to s.282(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986, of the Bankruptcy Order made against the Applicant dated 15 February 2018;
iii) Recission of the Order of Master Price dated 3 August 2016 in action HC-2016-001002;
iv) An Order requiring the repayment of the sum of £200,497.59 paid pursuant to the Order of Master Price on 3 August and 19 December 2016, plus interest thereon
In essence, Mr Hurst is trying to annul his bankruptcy (for the fifth time) and, by setting aside the Orders of Master Price, to set aside the grant of summary judgment against him in the sum of £200,497.59, and thereby to take to trial his assertions that undue influence led his mother to enter into a ‘double trust’ arrangement in 2003 in an attempt to avoid inheritance tax.
I dealt with a previous series of attempts to make the same applications in my previous judgment, the neutral citation for which is [2022] EWHC 796 (Ch), and which is essential background for this judgment. Leading up to that judgment, I had made an Order refusing permission on 20 December 2021, setting out brief reasons for my refusal. I repeated my conclusions in that judgment at [4]:
6. This is yet another attempt by Mr Hurst to undo the whole sequence of judicial decisions made against him based on essentially the same arguments which have now been considered and rejected numerous times.
7. I am satisfied that if I were to grant Mr Hurst the permission he seeks, the steps that he contemplates in:
a. Reviewing the decisions of Fancourt J. dated 5 February 2020 and 28 May 2021;
b. Annulling the Bankruptcy Order made against the Applicant dated 15 February 2018;
c. Rescinding the Order of Master Price dated 3 August 2016 in action HC-2016-001002, and thereby securing an Order requiring the repayment of the sum of £200,497.59 paid pursuant to the Order of Master Price on 3 August and 19 December 2016, plus interest thereon;
would each amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
That same day, Mr Hurst requested that I either review my decision or grant permission to appeal from it, on the basis of a detailed set of points set out in his letter of that date. I was unable to consider his points for some time, since I started a complex trial at the start of January 2022. For that reason, I decided to address his points in a written judgment (the neutral citation for which is set out above), which I concluded with these paragraphs:
‘35. It can be seen therefore, that there is essentially nothing new in Mr Hurst's latest application. It rests on the same regurgitated points, from which Mr Hurst seeks to draw what Fancourt J. characterised (correctly in my view) ‘inferences of a highly speculative nature’.
36. Therefore, I remain of the view which I expressed in my Order dated 20 th December 2021 (see paragraph Error! Reference source not found.) Accordingly I refuse the permission which Mr Hurst seeks, to apply for a fourth time seeking to annul his bankruptcy. In my view, this application was totally without merit.
37. Finally, in the alternative to his application for reconsideration, Mr Hurst sought permission to appeal, which I refuse.
38. A review of the original judgment of Master Price reveals a very long-running and bitter dispute between Mr Hurst and Mr and Mrs Green. It also reveals that Mr Hurst was ready, even at that point, to engage in unsupported surmise to try to establish a case of undue influence being exerted over his late mother. As Fancourt J. observed at [26] of his Second Judgment, Mr Hurst is unable to be objective and can only see a conspiracy involving his brother-in-law and sister and others. His obsession has consumed more than his fair share of judicial resources already.’
All my decisions regarding Mr Hurst have been made in my capacity as the (or one of the) designated Judges of an Extended Civil Restraint Order made against Mr Hurst by Fancourt J. in his Order dated 28 th May 2021.
The relevant recent history is as follows:
i) Mr Hurst made an informal application for permission to make the applications set out above in a witness statement dated 27 October 2022 which he sent that day.
ii) I considered his witness statement and its exhibit against the background of the Judgments (a) of Fancourt J. dated 5 February 2020 (the neutral citation for which is [2020] EWHC 344 (Ch)) (‘the First Judgment’) (b) 28 May 2021 (the neutral citation for which is [2021] EWHC 1767 (Ch)) (‘the Second Judgment’) and (c) my own judgment dated 19th April 2022 (the neutral citation for which I set out above).
iii) Having considered his application, by my Order dated 28 October 2022, I refused Mr Hurst the permission(s) he sought, for the reasons set out in that Order and which I reproduce below.
The reasons given in my Order dated 28th October 2022
I gave the following reasonably detailed reasons in my Order dated 28th October 2022 for refusing Mr Hurst permission to bring the series of applications set out above.
2. Mr Hurst's application is founded upon a payment (‘the Payment’) made by Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) of £200,000 to Greenbrook Industries Limited (GIL) on 29 June 2016, a company he says was controlled by David Green (the Second Respondent) and his brother, Richard Green.
3. Having made his allegations concerning the Payment, Mr Hurst seeks to mix them into support for his long-standing view that undue influence was exerted over his mother in 2003 – see, in his latest witness statement, [19]–[23].
4. I have previously rejected Mr Hurst's application for the same relief, made on different grounds, albeit ones which overlap with Mr Hurst's allegations of undue influence: see my judgment dated 19 th April 2022 under neutral citation [2022] EWHC 796 (Ch).
5. At the time of the Payment, BLP were the solicitors acting for the Claimants in Claim No. HC-2016-001002, being Evelyn Green, David Green (her husband) and Ian Mablin (the long-standing accountant who had acted for many years for Hanna Hurst and her husband until his death in 1985, and was executor of his estate), against Mr Hurst as Defendant. The claim form in that action was issued on 23 March 2016. The claimants brought the claim in their capacity as trustees of the Hanna Hurst Life Interest Trust, Hanna (sometimes referred to as Hannah) Hurst being the mother of Evelyn and Robert Hurst, and who passed away in August 2014. Mr Hurst was the sole executor of her will.
6. As executor, and with the agreement of the claimants, Mr Hurst arranged the sale of the property in which Mrs Hanna Hurst had lived for many years, for some £2.38m. At her death, she retained the legal title to that property, but that was subject to two trusts she created in 2003, the first being the Life Interest Trust and the second, the Children's Trust. These trusts were set up as part of an attempted tax mitigation scheme, designed to avoid inheritance tax.
7. The claimants were beneficially entitled to the proceeds of sale of the property, after deduction of monies due to mortgagees and the costs of sale. After those deductions, some £1.9m remained.
8. BLP made a proposal as how that balance should be dealt with by Mr Hurst but he did not accept those proposals and proceeded to deal with the monies as he thought fit.
9. That resulted in the claim being issued by the claimants against Mr Hurst, seeking, initially, some £405,071.81 which they said should be the sum available to the beneficiaries of the trusts, namely, the first claimant, Mr Hurst's wife (Stephanie) and their respective children.
10. The claimants sought summary judgment against Mr Hurst and it was this application which came before Master Price on 3 rd August 2016. Mr Hurst resisted summary judgment on various grounds, each of which Master Price considered. He concluded that none gave rise to any triable issue which had any realistic prospect of success and so granted summary judgment against Mr Hurst. Mr Hurst did not appeal.
11. Mr Hurst's grounds included allegations of undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty, described in the judgment of Master Price. Mr Hurst's principal assertion of undue influence concerned events in 2003 when Mrs Hanna Hurst established the ‘double trust’ arrangement. The alleged breaches of fiduciary duty were levelled at the second claimant for failing to consult with the other trustees regarding the possibility of unwinding the trust arrangements in 2005 after the passing of the Finance Act 2004, which contained provisions which removed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rupert St John Webster v John Francis Penley
... [2017] EWHC 887 (Ch), AEY v AL (Family Proceedings Extension of Civil Restraint Order) [2020] EWHC 3539 (Fam) and Hurst v Green [2022] EWHC 2895 (Ch). The position is also explained in note 3.11.7 in the 2022 edition of the White Book which quotes from a decision of the Court of Appeal in......