Turner v Haworth Associates & Anor

An appeal may be struck out summarily for abuse of the court’s process, but the proposed appellant should first be given an opportunity to show cause where that course is contemplated. The power now expressed in CPR 52.9 reflects the court’s inherent jurisdiction, although the rule did not apply before its commencement. A bare legal owner cannot restrain the person entitled to the whole beneficial interest from enjoying the property. Causes of action vested in a trustee in bankruptcy cannot be combined with later personal claims against a different defendant merely to enable those claims to proceed in existing proceedings. Without-notice injunctions require full and frank disclosure and a valuable cross-undertaking in damages.

Mr Turner appealed to the Court of Appeal from an order of His Honour Judge Anthony Thompson QC, sitting in the Southampton County Court, which struck out his appeal from District Judge Ainsworth’s order. The District Judge had discharged an injunction obtained without notice against Mrs Patricia Grieves, also known as Patricia Carter Pennington, and had directed that Mr Turner take no further steps in proceedings against Haworth Associates except through his trustee in bankruptcy.

The underlying proceedings concerned claims against Haworth Associates arising from a survey of land. Those claims had previously been held to have vested in the trustee in bankruptcy. Mr Turner sought to join Mrs Carter Pennington and pursue claims concerning land and chattels which he said remained his personally. The central issues were whether those claims could be pursued in the existing proceedings, whether the summary disposal of his appeal was permissible, and whether the injunction should have continued.

Appeal dismissed with costs. Lord Justice Chadwick delivered the judgment with which Lady Justice Hale agreed.

1. The injunction had been granted without notice and restrained Mrs Carter Pennington from dealing with land of which, on the evidence, she was plainly the beneficial owner. Mr Turner remained only a bare legal co-owner. That title did not entitle him to restrain the person entitled to the whole beneficial interest from dealing with the property as her own. The District Judge was entitled, and effectively required, to discharge the injunction.

2. Claims arising from the original proceedings against Haworth Associates had vested in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Insolvency Act 1986, section 306. Separate personal claims concerning chattels excluded from the bankrupt estate under section 283(2), or chattels held for another, did not become part of the existing action. Claims against Mrs Carter Pennington were distinct, and the refusal to join her disclosed no proper basis for appellate interference.

3. Section 337 of the Insolvency Act 1986 was immaterial because the trustee in bankruptcy was not seeking possession. Any unresolved question concerning the status of particular chattels could be determined, if necessary, in separate proceedings.

4. A court must be able to protect its proceedings from abuse and may deal summarily with an abusive appeal. Where a judge considers striking out an appeal on that basis, the proper course is to fix a hearing at which the appellant may show cause. The circuit judge’s failure to provide that opportunity was unfortunate, but remission was unnecessary because the Court of Appeal had heard and determined the matters itself.

5. The existing order that the action was vested in the trustee in bankruptcy remained binding. The later dismissal of the bankruptcy appeal meant that the causes of action could not revest in Mr Turner without assignment by the trustee. The appeal was dismissed. The court also reiterated the need for full and frank disclosure and a valuable cross-undertaking in damages on without-notice applications.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed, with costs summarily assessed at £4,500: [2001] EWCA Civ 370.

2. Southampton County Court, circuit judge: Mr Turner’s appeal from the District Judge’s order was struck out on 24 March 2000 without a hearing.

3. Southampton County Court, District Judge: An injunction granted without notice was discharged on 14 March 2000. Mr Turner was directed not to take further steps in the action, save through his trustee in bankruptcy, without leave.