Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others: ChD 11 Nov 2005

Ultraframe asked the judge to re-open his ‘in the round’ decision on costs.
Held: The decision questioned was not a draft, but a concluded judgment. The judge said that he had not made such a ‘palpable error’ in his order as to give him jurisdiction to re-open the decision.
Lewison J said: ‘The taking of an account is the means by which a beneficiary requires a trustee to justify his stewardship of trust property. The trustee must show what he has done with that property. If the beneficiary is dissatisfied with the way that a trustee has dealt with trust assets, he may surcharge or falsify the account. He surcharges the account when he alleges that the trustee has not obtained for the benefit of the trust all that he might have done, if he had exercised due care and diligence. If the allegation is proved, then the account is taken as if the trustee had received, for the benefit of the trust, what he would have received if he had exercised due care and diligence. The beneficiary falsifies the account when he alleges that the trustee has applied trust property in a way that he should not have done (e.g. by making an unauthorised investment). If the allegation is proved, then the account will be taken as if the expenditure had not been made; and as if the unauthorised investment had not formed part of the assets of the trust. Of course if the unauthorised investment has appreciated in value, the beneficiary may choose not to falsify the account: in which case the asset will remain a trust asset and the expenditure on it will be allowed in taking the account.’
Lewison J
[2005] EWHC 2506 (Ch)
Bailii
Citing:
CitedRobinson v Fernsby, Scott-Kilvert CA 19-Dec-2003
The judge had drafted his judgment and sent the drafts to the parties for comment. He then received additional written representations from one party, from which he realised that he had made an error, and issued a corrected judgment which a . .
CitedIn re Barrell Enterprises CA 1972
A judge has power to reconsider a judgement which he has delivered before the order consequent upon it has been sealed, but the judge should only exercise this power if there are strong reasons for doing so. When oral judgments have been given the . .
See AlsoUltraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .

Cited by:
CitedPullan v Wilson and Others ChD 28-Jan-2014
The court was asked difficult questions concerning the reasonableness of the remuneration charged to a number of family trusts by a professional trustee.
Held: Excessive claims for fees had been made, and the trustees were ordered to repay . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 January 2021; Ref: scu.234733

Comments are closed.