Claim No: PT-2020-61137

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
HATFIELD REGIONAL COURT CENTRE (ChD)

BETWEEN:

MISS MARGARET LASCELLES CLAIMANT

and

(1) MR THOMAS MOUNTBATTEN DEFENDANTS

(2) MR WINSTON TOWNSEND

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. At all material times:

a. The Claimant is a sole beneficiary of a trust set up by her aunt, The Right

Honourable Viscountess Sandringham.

b. The First Defendant is a sole trustee of a trust set up by The Right Honourable

Viscountess Sandringham for the benefit of the Claimant.

c. In the course of this business, the First Defendant was acting as a trustee who

was under obligation to follow provisions contained in the trust instrument. The

trust instrument’s clause 10.2 (c) stipulated that investments in public limited

companies must be lower than 10% of the initial trust capital held by the first

defendant.

d. The Second Defendant is the financial advisor of the trust held by the First

Defendant and operates on a contract for service basis.

2. The trust was created on 11th April 2002 for a total capital sum of £2,000,000.
3. On 3rd March 2020, the First Defendant invested a sum of £200,000 of the trust money

on advice of the Second Defendant to acquire 10,000 shares at a share price of £2 in

Crown-Windsor Medical Supplies PLC.

4. Moreover, the amount invested by the First Defendant was exactly 10% of the initial

capital sum left on trust.

5. Following that, the Second Defendant facilitated and secured the investment in the

capacity of financial advisor of the trust.

6. The Claimant made queries regarding the soundness of investment and the First

Defendant replied to the queries made by the Claimant via letter.

7. The letter stated that the investment made was good according to the Second Defendant

and it was because of the size of the investment that they were able to acquire the

Government contract with good returns and special rates.

8. As per the facts, the investment initially saw good returns with the share price rising.

However, the company failed to deliver on the Government contract by supplying faulty

equipment and went into administration.

9. Since the company went into administration, the value of the shares had been wiped out

losing the trust its investment and it was discovered that the shares were freely traded at

the time of the investment having a public value of £2 per share. Therefore, there was no

special rate for bigger investments.

10. Moreover, the Second Defendant received a commission of 10 percent of the total

investment i.e. £200,000 as per clause 31.1 (d) of the Second Defendant’s contract with

the company.

11. In addition, the second defendant received 5,000 shares upon acting as an agent for the

company as per clause 32.1 of his contract. Further, he exercised clause 32.3 that

allowed them to make a gift of the shares for no consideration.

12. Therefore, it is evident for the facts that the First Defendant was gifted 5,000 shares in

the company at by the Second Defendant for no consideration after procuring the

investment.
13. Moreover, the First Defendant is claimed to be induced while making the investment by

the Second Defendant so that he could exercise clause 32.3 of his contract for gifting the

shares to the First Defendant.

14. Also, Lady Lascelles claims that despite the Second Defendant knowing that he was

being relied on, his advice to make investment was influenced by his his personal gain

and he took advantage of the First Defendant’s vulnerability.

15. The matter complained of was caused by a breach of trust instruments and fiduciary duty

by the First Defendant. Also, the Second Defendant is claimed to be assisting the First

Defendant dishonestly in his breaches and receiving trust property unconscionably.

DUTIES OWED UNDER TRUST BY FIRST DEFENDANT

Duty of Trust:

16. The First Defendant was under an obligation to follow and to act in accordance with the

terms of trust instrument.

Fiduciary duty:

17. The First Defendant breaches his fiduciary duties as:

a) It was the duty of the First Defendant to act in good faith while managing the trust

asset.

b) It was the duty of the First Defendant to not make a profit out of trust.

c) It was his duty to not place himself in a conflicting position between his duties and

interest.
 d) The First Defendant was under an obligation to not act for his own benefit or for the

benefit of a third party without the informed consent from the Claimant

PARTICULARS OF BREACH OF DUTY BY FIRST DEFENDANT

Breach of Trust:

18. The First Defendant clearly breaches clause 10 (2) of the trust instrument by investing

the amount that was exactly 10 percent of the initial trust capital.

Breach of Fiduciary duty:

19. The Claimant seeks findings that:

a) The First Defendant did not act in good faith of the trust as he misused the trust

money for his own advantage/benefit without considering the risk that was to be

faced by the Claimant.

b) The First Defendant made profits from the transaction by receiving a gift of 5,000

shares from the Second Defendant.

c) The First Defendant was in a conflict of interest with his duties with a possibility to

retrieve his lost fortune from trust’s assets.

d) The First defendant acted for himself and the Second Defendant without express

consent of the Claimant.

Dishonest Assistance by the Second Defendant

20. The Second Defendant in this case is responsible for advising the First Defendant to

invest the trust funds in a company for whom he was acting as a commission-based

agent. Therefore, such a conduct holds him liable for:

a) Assisting the First Defendant dishonestly towards breach and inducing him to invest

the trust funds to get commission by gifting 5000 shares to the First defendant.

b) The second defendant would also be liable because he advised the first Defendant to

invest trust funds in a company for whom, he was acting as an agent on commission.

c) Therefore, the Second Defendant's conduct was dishonest by the ordinary standards

of reasonable and honest people and that he himself realised that by those standards

his conduct was dishonest.

Unconscionable Receipt by the Second Defendant

21. The second Defendant knowingly received the trust property, he knew that;

a) The second Defendant had beneficial receipt of the trust fund for his own financial

gain. He was acting as an agent for the company in which the First Defendant was

induced to invest the initial funds of the trust.

b) It would be unconscionable for the Second Defendant to retain the profit that he

gained in form of 10 percent commission from the investment. He was aware that the

investment was more than 10 percent of the initial trust fund that would be a breach

of the fiduciary duty by the First Defendant.

Remedy sought:

22. Foreseeably, the First Defendant will continue to misuse the trust for his benefit that will

cause detriment to the Claimant and the Second Defendant will continue in assisting the

First Defendant towards his conduct.

23. Requiring both the Defendants for an account of profits and/or benefits received.

24. Requiring an order that any such profits and/or benefits are revested in the Claimant

forthwith.

25. Requiring a declaration that the profits and/or benefits received are held on constructive

trust for the Claimant.

26. Requiring a declaration that the First defendant received bribe from the Second

Defendant.

27. Requiring the Defendants to provide witness statement with a statement of truth.

28. Therefore, the claimant seeks an interim prohibitory injunction:

a) Requiring both the Defendants not to leave the jurisdiction until final judgement.

b) Requiring both the Defendants to disclose necessary information and not to temper

any evidence

Particulars of loss and damage

29. The claimant seeks a financial relief of a total £270,000. Below mentioned is the

breakdown of the sum claimed:

a) The sum of £200,000 invested in breach of trust and fiduciary duty.

b) The sum of £10,000 received by the First defendant in form of 5,000 shares at value

of £2.

c) The sum of £20,000 received by the Second Defendant in form of 10 percent

commission from £200,000.

d) A court fee of £10,000.

e) Cost of legal representation £30,000

AND the Claimant claims:

I. Damages
II. Interest, whether compounded or not, at such rate and for such period as the Court

deems just, further to the Court’s equitable jurisdiction and/or section 35A of the

Senior Courts Act 1981.

III. An account and enquiry respect of the profit and/or benefits received.

IV. A declaration that the profits and/or benefits received are held on constructive trust

for the Claimant.

V. An order that any such profits and/or benefits are revested in the Claimant forthwith.

VI. A declaration that the First defendant received bribe from the Second Defendant.

VII. A restraining order to the Defendants.

VIII. Witness statements of both the Defendants.

KALEEN BHAIYYA
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
Dated
 Claim No: PT-2020-61137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
HATFIELD (ChD)

BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR JUSTICE MURAD

Tuesday 12th January 2021

BETWEEN:

MISS MARGARET LASCELLES CLAIMANT

and

(1) MR THOMAS MOUNTBATTEN DEFENDANTS

(2) MR WINSTON TOWNSEND

ORDER FOR AN INTERIM INJUNCTION

IMPORTANT:

NOTICE TO THE INTENDED DEFENDANT (“The Defendant”) etc

This is without notice application made by counsel on behalf of Lady Lascelles, the

Claimant, against Captain Thomas Mountbatten, Defendant 1, and Mr Churchill Townsend,

Defendant 2, to the Judge who will hear the Application supported by the Witness

Statement listed in Schedule 1 to this Order, and accepted the Undertakings in Schedule 2

at the end of this Order.

IT IS ORDERED that up to and including [...(12 January 20121 ) (“to 9th February”)] [9th
February trial of the action]:

1. The Defendants must not:

a) Leave the jurisdiction until the final judgement.
b) Exercise or use powers of their role in managing the trust.
c) Use and/or invest the funds acquired as a profit from the trust money
d) Temper with, destroy, or hide the evidence.
2. The Defendants must;
a) Hold the profits and/or benefits received held on constructive trust for the
Claimant.
b) Allow the documents in their possession to be inspected and kept record of.

SUBSTITUTED SERVICE/SERVICE OUT OF THE JURISDICTION et

VARIATION OR DISCHARGE OF THIS ORDER etc

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE CLAIMANTS’ SOLICITORS etc

Peter Nourse
Solicitor and Senior Partner
Akindele, Foskett, and Tan Solicitors
2 Boardman Court
Chemersham
HP57 1LC
DX 2001437 Chemersham 38
p.nourse@afts.co.uk
01707 437102
INTERPRETATION OF THIS ORDER etc

THE EFFECT OF THIS ORDER etc SERVICE OF THIS ORDER etc

SCHEDULE 1 (witness statements) SCHEDULE 2 (The undertakings)