Robert Hurst v Evelyn Green & Ors [2026] EWHC 1191 (Ch)

Neutral Citation Number:[2026] EWHC 1191 (Ch) CLAIM NO.BR-2017-001525IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEBUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALESINSOLVENCY & COMPANIES LIST (ChD)Venue The Rolls Building, 7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, LondonEC4A 1NLDate Tuesday 19 th May 2026
Before
MR JUSTICE MELLOR
IN THE MATTER OF AN EXTENDED CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDER (‘THE ECRO’) GRANTED AGAINST ROBERT ALFRED HURST IN THE ORDER OF MRS JUSTICE JOANNA SMITH DATED 7 NOVEMBER 2024 (‘THE ORDER’ – WHICH EXTENDED BY 3 YEARS FROM THAT DATE THE ECRO GRANTED AGAINST ROBERT ALFRED HURST IN THE ORDER OF MR JUSTICE MELLOR DATED 15 NOVEMBER 2022, THAT ORDER ITSELF EXTENDING THE ECRO GRANTED IN THE ORDER OF MR JUSTICE FANCOURT DATED 28 TH MAY 2021)AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ROBERT ALFRED HURST DATED 24 APRIL 2026AND IN THE MATTER OF MR HURST’S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE ORDER MADE HEREIN BY MELLOR J. DATED 29 APRIL 2026MR ROBERT HURST Applicant- and –
Between
MRS EVELYN GREEN RespondentsMR DAVID GREENMR IAN MABLIN
Dealt with on the papers
Approved JudgmentI direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.This judgment was handed down remotely by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email. It will also be released for publication on the National Archive website. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be Tuesday 19 May 2026 at 10.30am.

Introduction

[1]This judgment concerns a request for clarification by Mr Hurst of the terms of the Order I made dated 29 April 2026. A copy of that sealed Order is annexed to this Judgment. In view of Mr Hurst’s persistence in pursuing hopeless applications and appeals, I considered it best to record my response to his request in this short judgment.[2]Mr Hurst’s request concerns his allegation that, when the Respondents issued the Claim in HC-2016-001002 on 23 March 2016, they had no intention of implementing the terms of what he terms ‘the purported trusts’ and therefore, on 3 August 2016 (the date of the Order for Summary Judgment made by Master Price against Mr Hurst), the Court was misled. Mr Hurst also alleges that in my Order dated 29 April 2026, I failed to address a series of paragraphs in his Witness Statement dated 24 April 2026.[3]Mr Hurst’s allegations of breaches of trust by the Respondent trustees must be viewed against the backdrop of Mr Hurst’s repeated attempts to make the following series of applications: i) To review, pursuant to s.375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986, the decisions of Fancourt J. dated 5 February 2020 and 28 May 2021; ii) Annulment, pursuant to s.282(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986, of the Bankruptcy Order made against the Applicant dated 15 February 2018; iii) Recission of the Order of Master Price dated 3 August 2016 in action HC-2016-001002; iv) An Order requiring the repayment of the sum of £200,497.59 paid pursuant to the Order of Master Price on 3 August and 19 December 2016, plus interest thereon[4]In essence, Mr Hurst is trying to annul his bankruptcy (for the nth time) and, by setting aside the Orders of Master Price, to set aside the grant of summary judgment against him in the sum of £200,497.59, and thereby to take to trial his assertions that undue influence led his mother to enter into a ‘double trust’ arrangement in 2003 in an attempt to avoid inheritance tax.[5]This is not the first time that Mr Hurst has tried this particular route which involves allegations of breaches of trust by the Respondent trustees. I refer to: i) [16] of the reasons set out in my Order dated 20 December 2021, also quoted in my Judgment [2022] EWHC 2895 (Ch); ii) [14] & [16] of the reasons set out in my Order dated 1 July 2024 (which I also quoted in my Order dated 29 April 2026 at [8]); iii) [11] of the reasons set out in my Order dated 29 April 2026.[6]As I have indicated to Mr Hurst very clearly, if there had been any impropriety on the part of the Respondent trustees in the operation of the trusts, the remedy is a claim against the trustees by Mr Hurst’s wife. As far as I am aware, no such claim has ever been brought. However, as I have also said repeatedly, the existence of such a claim would not provide Mr Hurst with any basis for setting aside the summary judgment granted by Master Price against Mr Hurst, nor the subsequent bankruptcy order made against Mr Hurst, nor any of the other Orders he seeks to set aside.[7]Finally, I certify Mr Hurst’s request as totally without merit.