No misappropriation of trust money found on the part of CMS Cameron McKenna
The High Court of Justice in England and Wales granted summary judgment in favour of a law firm and dismissed its former clients’ claims concerning alleged breaches of trust relating to criminal and civil trust monies.
The claimants in this case terminated their retainer with CMS Cameron McKenna Mabarro Olswang LLP (CMS) in 2023.
The claimants later filed an application raising concerns about the handling of “criminal trust monies” allegedly held in trust to pay counsel’s fees for criminal proceedings.
The claimants later asked the court to amend their application to include “civil trust monies” allegedly paid to CMS in connection with counsel’s fees for civil proceedings. The claimants argued that CMS breached its fiduciary duties and improperly used these funds.
No breach of trust found
In Camran Mirza & Ors v CMS Cameron McKenna Mabarro Olswang LLP, [2024] EWHC 2058 (Ch), the High Court of Justice in England and Wales (Chancery Division) granted the request by CMS to summarily dismiss the claimants’ main application. The court also dismissed the claimants’ application seeking an amendment.
The court found that the claimants’ arguments lacked merit and were substantially inaccurate. The court saw no evidence that the firm acted improperly, breached the trust of its former clients, misappropriated their funds, or exercised or threatened to exercise a lien over the trust monies.
Instead, the court ruled that CMS used the funds appropriately for their intended purposes and transferred any remaining balances as directed by the claimants.
The court took issue with the lack of urgency in the actions of the claimants’ counsel. Despite alleging that they were concerned about potential breaches of trust, the claimants’ counsel failed to provide necessary information or to promptly authorize payments, the court noted.
“This high octane approach is entirely inconsistent with the overriding objective and the conduct that the court expects in particular from parties who are well represented by experienced litigators,” wrote Master Francesa Caye for the High Court.
The court held that the claimants’ case was abusive and that the litigation was unnecessary. The court noted that the claimants failed to engage in reasonable pre-action conduct and changed their arguments over time.
Regarding the claimants' application to amend their claim to include the civil trust monies, the court found that the proposed amendments were unlikely to succeed and were inconsistent with the court's duty to manage cases efficiently.
There was no risk of future damage in this case, given that the claimants accepted that any past alleged breach of trust had already been remedied before the application was made, the court noted.
