Re Yates' Settlement Trusts; Yates and Another v Paterson and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE DENNING,LORD JUSTICE ROMER |
| Judgment Date | 01 March 1954 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1954] EWCA Civ J0301-2 |
| Date | 01 March 1954 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1954] EWCA Civ J0301-2
In the Supreme Court of Judicature.
Court of Appeal.
The Master of the Rolls
(Sir Raymond Evershed),
Lord Justice Denning and
Lord Justice Romer.
In the Matter of the Trusts of a Settlement' dated the 29th November, 1938, and made between Harry James Yates of the one part and Thomas Nathan Jennings Lawrence Petchell Potter and Frederick Wadden Charles of the other part.
(Spinster) and Others
MR RAYMOND JENNINGS, Q. C., and MR J. A. BRIGHTMAN (instructed by Messrs Bulcraig & Davis) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Plaintiffs).
MR H. LIGHTMAN (instructed by Messrs Bulcraig & Davis) appeared on behalf of the Respondents the First and three infant Defendants.
MR J. PLOWMAN (instructed by Messrs Bulcraig & Davis) appeared on behalf of the Respondents the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth Defendants.
MR J. A. WOLEE (instructed by Messrs Bulcraig & Davis) appeared on behalf of the Respondents the ninth, tenth eleventh and twelfth Defendants.
This is a curious and unusual appeal, arising out of a matter entitled in the Trusts of Yates' Settlement, which came before Mr Justice Harman on the 8th February last. The application was one for obtaining the approval of the Court to a proposed scheme of compromise or scheme of family arrangement, the family arrangement proposed being one for dealing with the subject-matter of the Settlement which formed the title of the Summons.
Mr Jennings, for the two Plaintiffs, who are the sons of the Settler, has contended and contends that the particular type of arrangement or compromise falls within the scope of the decision of this Court in Re Downshire' Settlement, decided a year ago last December. He recalls that this Court delivered at the same time judgment in Re Downshire and in two other cases, the third of which is known as Re Chapman, and that the decision in the last-named case was, on the 8th of February when this matter came before Mr Justice Harman, before the House of Lords on appeal. That appeal has now been heard, but the decision of the House has so far not yet been given. From what I have said it will be noted that only Re Chapman, and not Re Downshire, was the subject of appeal, but I think it must be taken that the decision of the House In Re Chapman might well have a bearing upon the grounds upon which this Court based its decision in Re Downshire,.
However, subject of course to any such pronouncement, the law has been stated by this Court in Re Downshire. which case is not subject to appeal. The result is that, as things now are, prima facie any case falling completely within the scope of Re Downshire would, by the authority of that case, be held to be within the jurisdiction of the Chancery judge to determine; but whether, for the reasons that I have indicated (namely, the uncertainty which, until the House has delivered its opinion, necessarily in some measure surrounds this class of application), or whether because the hearing of Re Chapman had begun on thevery day when this matter came before Mr Justice Harman, the learned judge came to the conclusion that he would adjourn the hearing of Re Yates until after the result of the appeal in Re Chapman. The order drawn upon was accordingly one which simply ordered that' the said application do stand over'; and thereafter it is stated in the Order that the Judge did not require further argument, but gave leave to appeal.
Now, to dispose of one matter first, there is I think no doubt that if a judge adjourns a case, just as if he refuses an adjournment of a case, he has performed a judicial act which can be reviewed by this Court; though I need not say that an adjournment or a refusal of an adjounrment is a matter prima facie entirely within the discretion of the judge. This Court would therefore be very slow to Interfere with any such order; but as I have said, in my...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Masters of Beckenham Ltd v Green
-
Daimler AG v Mol (Europe Africa) Ltd
...those circumstances it may be argued that the hearing should be adjourned pending the outcome of the appeal or the reference (see Re Yates' Settlement Trusts [1954] 1 All E.R. 619, CA; Sprote v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, The Times, 6 August 1991, EAT; Green v Skandia Life As......
-
Re Ropner's Settlement Trusts ; Ropner v Ropner ; Re Harrison's Share under A Settlement ; Re Williams' Will Trusts
...of the expected decision in Chapman v. Chapman. On the following day, however, Mr Justice Roxburgh saw a report of the case of In re Yates' Settlement Trusts. 1954, 1 Weekly Law Reports, page 564, In which this Court had held (though in somewhat special circumstances) that a similar applica......
-
Apex Fund Services Ltd v Mr. Mathew Clingerman
...or refusing an adjournment of the trial (compare Maxwell v. Keun [1928] 1 K.B. 645, with Re Yates's Settlement Trusts, Yates v. Yates [1954] 1 W.L.R. 564; [1954] 1 ALL E.R. 619, where the appeal was allowed), or the grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction (Hadmore (sic) Productio......
-
ENLARGED PANELS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SINGAPORE
...27; Singapore International Commercial Court Practice Directions (updated 15 March 2019) Form 18. 144 In re Yates' Settlement Trusts [1954] 1 WLR 564. 145 See, for instance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, “The Role of the Supreme Court Seven Years On – Lessons Learnt” Bar Council Law Reform ......