Roberts (FC) (Appellant) v Gill & Co Solicitors and others (Respondents), [2010] UKSC 22

Thu, 20 May 2010 17:23:50 GMT

On 25 August 2006, the Appellant applied to amend his claim so as to continue it both in his own personal capacity and on behalf of the estate. The First and Second Respondents resisted the application on the grounds (a) that the amendment was barred as being out of time under section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 (‘the Act’) and rule 19.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules (‘the CPR’), and (b) that there were no ‘special circumstances’ which entitled the Appellant, as a beneficiary, to continue the claim on behalf of the estate.

The High Court refused the application, holding that there were no special circumstances. The Court of Appeal held by a majority that there were special circumstances but that the amendment was timebarred. The Appellant appealed.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Lord Collins gave the leading judgment, dismissing the appeal on the basis that the amendment was time-barred. Lords Rodger and Walker agreed with the entirety of Lord Collins’ judgment. Lords Hope and Clarke declined to decide the case on the grounds that the amendment was time-barred but nonetheless ruled in favour of the First and Second Respondents on the ground that there were no special circumstances which entitled the Appellant to carry on the claim on behalf of the estate.

Thorner (Appellant) v Majors and others (Respondents), [2009] UKHL 18

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:15:00 GMT

The appellant, David Thorner, is a farmer who, for nearly 30 years, did substantial work without pay on the farm of his father’s cousin Peter Thorner. The judge found that from 1990 until his death in 2005, Peter encouraged David to believe that he would inherit the farm and that David acted in reliance upon this assurance. In the event, however, Peter left no will. In these proceedings, David claims that by reason of the assurance and reliance, Peter’s estate is estopped from denying that he has acquired the beneficial interest in the farm. The judge found the case proved but the Court of Appeal reversed him.

The House of Lords unanimously allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the judge. The judge had found not only that it was reasonable for David to have understood Peter’s words and acts to mean that “he would be Peter’s successor to [the farm]” but that it was reasonable for him to rely upon them. These findings of fact were sufficient to support the judge’s decision.

Trust & Executries

Roberts (FC) (Appellant) v Gill & Co Solicitors and others (Respondents), [2010] UKSC 22

Thorner (Appellant) v Majors and others (Respondents), [2009] UKHL 18