Willis v Earl of Beauchamp
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1885 |
| Year | 1885 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Administration - Practice - Staying Proceedings - Frivolous and vexations Action - Action to revoke Administration against Representatives of deceased Administrator -
An action was brought to obtain revocation of letters of administration granted in 1798, the plaintiff claiming to represent the next of kin of the intestate, and the defendants being the representatives of the deceased administrator:—
Held, that, having regard to the lapse of time, the fact that the defendants did not and could not succeed to the administration sought to be revoked, and the other circumstances of the case, the action was frivolous and vexatious, and must be dismissed.
The Probate Division has, apart from Order XXV., r. 4, an inherent jurisdiction, in common with other Courts, to stay proceedings which are frivolous and vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the Court.
APPEAL from an order of Butt, J., dismissing the action as being frivolous and an abuse of the process of the Court.
It appeared that William Jennens of Acton, died in 1798, a bachelor and intestate. In the same year letters of administration were granted to Earl Beauchamp and the Viscountess Andover as next of kin to the intestate. In 1817, after the death of those administrators, letters of administration de bonis non were granted to Catherine Countess Beauchamp, as executrix of Earl Beauchamp. In 1882 letters of administration de bonis non for a nominal sum were granted to one Isaac Martin.
The present action was brought by George Willis, as representing William Jennens of Belper, alleged to have been the true next of kin of William Jennens of Acton, against the present Earl Beauchamp and A. T. Coe, claiming revocation of the letters of administration of 1798 and 1817. The defendants were the present representatives of the administrators of 1798, and of the administratrix of 1817.
The property of William Jennens of Acton administered, was about 800,000l., and the plaintiff, misunderstanding the terms used in a return to the Legacy Duty Office, stated that about 200,000l. more remained unadministered. This, however, was shewn to be a mistake.
Inderwick, Q.C., and Middleton, for the plaintiff. There is nothing frivolous or demurrable in the statement of claim, and the Court has no jurisdiction under Order XXV., r. 4. The limitation of time under s. 13 of 23 & 24 Vict. c. 38, does not apply. The plaintiff is not suing the representatives of the administrator for administration of the estate, but is asking to have the grant of administration revoked. He claims administration, but until the existing letters of administration are revoked, he cannot obtain it. Where administration has been obtained on a false statement, the Act 23 & 24 Vict. c. 38, does not give protection, as the title of the administrator would have accrued only when the letters of administration were granted.
Jeune (E. Clarke, Q.C., with him), for the defendants. The estate has been fully administered, and if the plaintiff succeeds he cannot get anything. Even if the administration was wrongly granted, the estate of the administrator is not liable, 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77, s. 77. Besides, the plaintiff does not ask to have administration granted to himself, which he must do if the old letters of administration are to be revoked. The original administrators are dead, and there is nothing to revoke. The Court has full power to dismiss a useless action under Order XXV., r. 4, and generally.
Inderwick, Q.C., in reply. The plaintiff asks to displace persons who were improperly appointed and improperly possessed themselves of the assets. It is said that nothing can be recovered, but if the administrators have improperly applied the assets their estates are liable. The Acts of 1857 and 1860 do not protect administrators where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Repco (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Tan Tho Fatt
-
DPP v Conlon
...jurisdiction to operate the provision of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857. O. v. M. [1977] I.R. 33applied. Willis v. Earl Beauchamp (1886) 11 P.D. 59 at p. 63 approved. 2. That, in the absence of an attempt to serve the respondent personally with the appropriate notice as required by the ......
-
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council v AM
...scheme to supplement that statutory scheme in order to fill a gap or to avoid injustice (see for example Willis v Earl Beauchamp (1886) 11 PD 59 at 63). As Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR observed in the Court of Appeal in In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1 at 13, in a pas......
-
Martyn James v Lorraine Anne Scudamore
...the Court of Appeal that he did not “say it was frivolous or vexatious”. After considering another authority ( Willis v Earl Beauchamp (1886) 11 PD 59, CA) which he said did “not … afford much assistance”, Tucker LJ concluded as follows (at 73A): “Having regard to the facts that the jurisdi......