Samuel John Fielden v Stephen Christie-Miller and Others Stephen Christie-Miller (Part 20 Claimant) Samuel John Fielden and Others (Part 20 Defendants)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir William Blackburne |
| Judgment Date | 21 October 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 2940 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC-2014-000167 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 21 October 2015 |
and
and
[2015] EWHC 2940 (Ch)
Sir William Blackburne
Case No: HC-2014-000167
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Penelope Reed QC (instructed by Burges Salmon LLP) for the claimant and first Part 20 defendant
Gilead Cooper QC and Edward Hewitt (instructed by Wilsons Solicitors LLP) for the first defendant/Part 20 claimant
Richard Wilson and Harry Martin (instructed by Boodle Hatfield LLP) for the third, fourth, ninth and tenth Part 20 defendants
Hearing date: 16 July 2015
Introduction
This is yet another round in the dispute over the succession to the Swyncombe Estate in Oxfordshire ("the Estate"). I have already given two judgments in the matter: [2015] EWHC 87 (Ch) on 22 January 2015 and [2015] EWHC 752 (Ch) on 20 March 2015. Those two judgments were concerned with the adequacy of Stephen Christie-Miller's part 20 claim. This round is concerned with Stephen's attempt to re-plead his case and with a development of potentially great importance to Samuel Fielden's claim in the main action and to Stephen's claim. It has resulted in the issue by Stephen of three separate applications. All three are before me. So also are outstanding costs issues arising out of the applications that led to those two judgments. Before I come to these various matters it is necessary to set the scene.
Rather than simply refer the reader to the background facts briefly summarised in the second of those two judgments I repeat that summary adding to it where necessary to explain how the most recent development fits in.
The Estate is in two parts. One part is held upon the trusts established by a settlement dated 18 February 1967 ("the Settlement") executed by Charles Wakefield Christie-Miller ("Charles"). The other part is held upon the trusts declared by the Will ("the Will trusts") dated 15 March 1998 of William John Christie-Miller ("John") who died on 3 May 1999. John was the only son of Charles. He had no children but left a widow, Kathleen, who died on 20 December 2004.
The Estate consists mostly of land in and around Swyncombe village. It seems that, as the years passed, Charles became concerned about the future of the Estate, in particular the likely impact on it of taxation on his death. (He died in 1976.) A strategy to mitigate the effects of tax was devised whereby the Estate was split into two, to be held in different ownerships, so as to spread and lessen the likely tax. The strategy was carried into effect and resulted in Charles transferring one part of the Estate, then known as the Swyncombe Downs Estate, to John. This was in 1958. In 1967, the remaining part was settled so giving rise to the Settlement.
It appears that, despite the split in ownership, the two parts of the Estate were run as one, a circumstance facilitated by the fact that, as I was told, although no more than discretionary objects under the trusts of the Settlement, John and, after his death, Kathleen were in receipt of the income of the Settlement, effectively as if appointments for life in their favour had been executed.
It is worth mentioning at this point what the material beneficial trust provisions were both under the Settlement and under the Will trusts. Under the Settlement a part of the Estate and various investments ("the Settlement Fund") were settled upon and continue to be held by the Settlement trustees subject to a power of appointment, exercisable during a defined trust period, among one or more of a discretionary class of beneficiaries comprising the issue of the settlor Charles, the issue of his brother Sydney Christie-Miller, the issue of his nephew David Christie-Miller (the father of Stephen), any wife or widow for the time being of John and any spouse, widow or widower for the time being of any grandchild or remoter issue of Charles. Sam is a grandson of Charles and therefore within the discretionary class. There were various other provisions expressed to take effect in default of and subject to any exercise of the power of appointment. Under his will, subject to various specific and pecuniary legacies, John conferred a life interest in his residuary estate (which included the Swyncombe Downs Estate) ("the Will Fund") upon his widow, Kathleen. That life interest was subject to a power of appointment over the Will Fund in favour of a class of beneficiaries which comprised Kathleen, the issue of Charles (and including therefore Sam), the issue of David Christie-Miller (and including therefore Stephen) and the spouses, widows and widowers of the respective issue of Charles and David. For a reason which will later appear I call this class of beneficiaries "the wider class". Also, and importantly, clause 7(d) of the Will conferred on Stephen what was in effect a default interest in the income and capital of the Will Fund in that it was subject to the earlier provisions of the Will.
Kathleen survived John and had the benefit of her life interest in the Will Fund until she died on 20 December 2004. By that time, consideration was being given to what was to happen to the Estate, both that part which was subject to the Settlement and that part now held subject to the Will trusts. In particular, a selection had to be made of the person or persons, among the many named in the wide classes of discretionary beneficiaries available under the two instruments, in whose favour the two sets of trustees should exercise their respective powers of appointment. The principal contenders for the succession were Sam and Stephen. Both were within the eligible classes named in the two instruments. Sam, as I have mentioned, is a grandson of Charles, his mother being one of Charles's four daughters. He is therefore a nephew of John. Stephen is more remotely related: as the son of David Christie-Miller he is a great-nephew of Charles, his grandfather Geoffrey Christie-Miller being one of Charles's brothers. Accompanying this judgment is an abbreviated family tree which shows more clearly the relevant relationships.
By early 2005 the Settlement trustees had resolved to grant Sam interests in the Settlement Fund. The details of this do not for present purposes matter. It is sufficient to say that deeds giving effect to this were executed in due course. Excluded from these deeds was Home Farmhouse, a property forming a part of the Settlement Fund, in which Stephen and his family had resided since April 1996. In March 2007 the Will trustees purported to exercise the testamentary power of appointment conferred by the Will trusts. By that exercise, subject to certain trusts declared by the Will in favour of Stephen, the Will Fund with its income was thenceforth to be held for Sam absolutely. The terms of the deed of appointment ("the 20 March deed of appointment") became a matter of controversy and resulted in the launching by Sam in August 2013 of proceedings against Stephen and the former and current trustees of the Will trusts. By those proceedings, which are brought against Stephen as the first defendant, the former Will trustees (i.e. those in office when the 20 March deed of appointment was executed) as the second to fourth defendants and the current Will trustees as the fifth to eighth defendants, Sam seeks declaratory relief concerning the true construction of the deed, alternatively rectification of it. The relief is designed to establish that the deed was effective to provide, or should be rectified so as to provide, that the income of the appointed fund is to be held for Stephen for life and that subject thereto capital and income are to be held for Sam absolutely. Stephen defends those proceedings. He contends that the correct and intended effect of the deed is that it does not cut down the absolute interest which, in the events that have happened, is given to him by another provision in the Will. He brings a counterclaim — the part 20 claim – against Sam (the first part 20 defendant), the original and current Will trustees (the second to fourth and fifth to eighth part 20 defendants) and the current Settlement trustees (the third, fourth, ninth and tenth part 20 defendants). He seeks declaratory and other relief to give effect to what he says is the correct construction of the 20 March deed of appointment. Relying on a proprietary estoppel, he asserts an interest in Home Farmhouse where he and his family continue to live.
On 22 January 2015, I delivered judgment on an application dated 19 May 2014 brought by the Settlement trustees to strike out Stephen's part 20 claim. Two grounds were advanced. The first was that the representations upon which the estoppel was based had to be representations made by or on behalf of all of the Settlement trustees if they were to bind them. It was said that Stephen's statement of case, even when read with his reply to the Settlement trustees' defence, did not sufficiently allege that the representations or assurances relied upon were made by or on behalf of them all. This requirement was referred to as "the unanimity principle". If the principle applied the estoppel claim, as then pleaded, would fail. Stephen contended that the principle did not apply to a claim alleging...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Syed Aminul Haque (representative/member of Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan unincorporated association) v Altaf Hussain
...as and when it arises, if it does. 29 He also relied upon the decision of Sir William Blackburne in Fielden v Christie-Millar [2015] EWHC 2940 (Ch). A point was taken in that case that trustees of a settlement of land should have remained neutral and not adopted a hostile stance to the cla......
-
Clement v Lucas
...rather than from the Trust’s assets, however, may ameliorate Derene’s concerns to some extent. 17 Fielden v Christie-Miller [2015] EWHC 2940 (Ch), [2015] WTLR 1689 at I am unable to respond to the request in Mr Stringer’s memorandum of 27 June 2018 for a direction that the proposed adjustme......