The builders had obtained a charging order for the costs awarded to them in extensive litigation, and a third party costs order but without the third party having opportunity to test the bill delivered. They had agreed to sell land to the defendant, but he had required the transfer to be in a different form and in favour of the third party who had provided the funds. Eventually the transfer had been signed by the court and registered, but subject to the charging order.
Held: The appeals failed. The defendant had conducted the litigation on behalf of the third party as her trustee. After contract, and until completion, the vendor becomes in equity a trustee for the purchaser. The defendant was still such a tristee, and ‘the authorities have no application to a case where the trust property is the purchaser’s interest in land created by the existence of an executory contract for sale and purchase.’ The other party had made clear her own involvement in the matter, writing: ‘the matter between your client and me will become a long-running saga along a costly course from Dewsbury to Strasbourg.’
This is as far removed from the normal case of a trustee consulting a beneficiary as it is possible to be. This was obsessive and pointless litigation conducted by Mr Nelson with the active encouragement and support of Ms Hanley.
 EWCA Civ 1358, Times 22-Jan-2008
Charging Orders Act 1979 2(1)(b)(I), Supreme Court Act 1981 51(3)
England and Wales
Cited – Saunders v Vautier 7-May-1841
A direction in a will stated that the income from certain shares was to be accumulated and invested until the beneficiary attained the age of 25. On attaining his majority at 21 years, the beneficiary sought termination of the trust, and transfer of . .
Cited – Grey and Another (Hunter’s Nominees) v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1958
Where a person who is the owner beneficially of property (and the legal estate is vested in another as trustee for him) makes a declaration of trust the practical effect amounts to the ‘getting rid of’ a trust or equitable interest then subsisting. . .
Cited – Egmont v Smith CA 1877
The court discussed the position of a vendor of land between exchange and completion: ‘He is certainly a trustee for the purchaser, a trustee, no doubt, with peculiar duties and liabilities, for it is a fallacy to suppose that every trustee has the . .
Cited – Englewood Properties Limited v Patel and Another ChD 16-Feb-2005
The claimant was a property developer, which sought to sell a row of shops at auction. One lot was a Woolworths store, where the company owned both freehold and leasehold interests, with Woolworths occupying an underlease, which the claimant had . .
Cited – Rayner v Preston CA 8-Apr-1881
The vendors agreed to sell a house which they had insured against fire risk. The house was damaged by fire after contract but before completion, and the issue was whether the purchaser was entitled to the benefit of the insurance.
Held: . .
Cited – Hamilton v Al Fayed and Others (No 2) CA 17-May-2002
The claimant had lost a libel action and been bankrupted. The defendant sought to recover his costs from those who had financially supported the claimant. He now appealed a dismissal of his request for contributions.
Held: An order for the . .
Cited – Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Limited v John Todd and Alicia B Todd Bilgola Enterprises Ltd and Lambton Quay Books Ltd PC 7-Oct-2002
PC (New Zealand) The claimants asserted that the respondents had wrongly terminated their franchise licence. The agreement was subject to the New South Wales law requiring good faith, but the court had not had . .
Cited – Goodwood Recoveries Ltd v Breen CA 19-Apr-2005
A claim against the defendant for money owed to someone else had been bought by the claimant of which Slater, a solicitor, was a director and shareholder. The claim was pursued in the name of the claimant by Slater as its solicitor and principal . .
Cited – Globe Equities Ltd v Globe Legal Services Ltd and others and Other Actions CA 5-Mar-1999
A court which was considering ordering a third party, who was not party to the action, to pay costs in an action, should first be satisfied that it is just to do so in all the circumstances. There is no need to establish any exceptional . .
Cited – Gleeson v J Wippell and Co Ltd ChD 1977
The court considered the circumstances giving rise to a plea of res judicata, and proposed a test of privity in cases which did not fall into any recognised category. ‘Second, it seems to me that the sub-stratum of the doctrine is that a man ought . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 May 2021; Ref: scu.262880