Robert Seals and Another v Florence Anne Williams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Norris |
| Judgment Date | 15 May 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 1829 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: A31MA134 |
| Date | 15 May 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 1829 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Manchester Civil Justice Centre
1 Bridge Street West
Manchester
M60 9DJ
Mr Justice Norris
VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE COUNTY PALATINE
Case No: A31MA134
Serena Gowling (instructed by Rural Law Practice) for the Claimants
Christopher McNall (instructed by Nigel Davis Solicitors) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 15 May 2015
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.
Robert Seals and Andrew Seals commenced Inheritance Act proceedings against the estate of their late father, Arnold Seals. The sole executrix and beneficiary of the estate of the late Arnold Seals is Mrs Williams.
There has already been one round of litigation, before David Richards J, concerning entries on the title of the property which comprised the bulk of the Estate. It is clear that those proceedings and the subsequent Inheritance Act claim generated a great deal of acrimony and that the positions of the parties are in danger of becoming entrenched. An attempt at mediation has largely stalled because of differing perceptions of the issues in dispute and of the strength of the respective arguments.
In this context, it is highly commendable that the legal representatives for the parties have proposed as a way forward, and the court has been invited to undertake, an Early Neutral Evaluation of the case. The advantage of such a process over mediation itself is that a judge will evaluate the respective parties' cases in a direct way and may well provide an authoritative (albeit provisional) view of the legal issues at the heart of the case and an experienced evaluation of the strength of the evidence available to deploy in addressing those legal issues. The process is particularly useful where the parties have very differing views of the prospect of success and perhaps an inadequate understanding of the risks of litigation itself.
The FDR process is familiar in the Family Courts. Although the process endorsed in the Chancery Modernisation Review as a valuable tool (see paras 5.23 to 5.30) and features in the Guides both of the Commercial Court (see para...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lomax v Lomax as Executor of the Estate of Alan Joseph Lomax (Deceased)
...to which we have been referred include, in particular, Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust and Seals and Seals v Williams [2015] EWHC 1829 (Ch). In the former decision, Dyson LJ (as he then was), giving the judgment of the court, said at paragraph 9: “We heard argument on the question......
-
Getting the Deal Through – Dispute Resolution 2018 – England & Wales
...the court to manage cases, including encouraging litigants to use an ADR process if appropriate (see Seals and another v Williams [2015] EWHC 1829 (Ch), where the court encouraged early neutral evaluation). The court may stay proceedings to allow for ADR or settlement for such period as the......