BARWICK v WILLIAMSON

This Decision considered whether beneficiaries under a Will had standing to obtain an ex parte Mareva Order to preserve assets alleged to belong to the Estate, but transferred through inter vivos gifts shortly before the deceased’s death.

Justice Lema affirmed that Rule 2.11(e) requires an Estate without a Grant of Probate, but with an interest in a claim, to act through a Litigation Representative, and Rule 2.15 requires a formal Application for the appointment of a Litigation Representative where one is required.

Although the beneficiaries amended their Statement of Claim to seek relief to pursue the Estate’s claims, or alternatively the appointment of a Litigation Representative under Rule 2.15, they proceeded with the ex parte Mareva Application without obtaining such an appointment. As a result, neither the pleadings nor the Mareva Order rested on proper standing.

Despite this, all subsequent filed documents named “Jane Doe” as Litigation Representative for the Estate. Justice Lema confirmed that merely naming a Litigation Representative in the style of cause, without judicial appointment, did not confer standing, and held that this deficiency alone required the Mareva Order to be set aside.

Finally, applying the duty of full and frank disclosure governing ex parte Applications under Rule 6.4, Justice Lema found that the beneficiaries failed to disclose material evidence, providing an additional basis to vacate the Order.