Boyd v Catherine Margaret Thorn as executrix of the estate of the late Betty McAuley

The case of Boyd v Catherine Margaret Thorn as executrix of the estate of the late Betty McAuley involved the plaintiff seeking to set aside declarations and orders made pursuant to UCPR rule 36.15. The plaintiff, Boyd, claimed that declarations of constructive trust and equitable charge over property co-owned by Boyd and the deceased, Betty McAley, were irregular and directly affected Boyd's rights and liabilities. Boyd was not a party when the declarations were made. The court was tasked with determining whether the declarations and orders were irregular and whether they could be set aside as of right.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the declarations and orders, which were made without Boyd's participation and directly affected Boyd's rights, could be set aside. The court considered whether the declarations and orders were irregular and whether Boyd, as a non-party, was directly affected by them. The court also examined whether the declarations and orders were to be set aside as of right. The court was required to determine whether the declarations and orders were irregular and whether Boyd's rights were directly affected, leading to the potential setting aside of these declarations and orders.

The court found that the declarations and orders were irregular and directly affected Boyd's rights as a non-party. The court determined that the declarations and orders were made without Boyd's knowledge or participation and that Boyd's rights were directly affected by the outcome. As a result, the court held that the declarations and orders were irregular and could be set aside as of right. The court found that the declarations and orders were irregular and that Boyd's rights were directly affected, leading to the setting aside of these declarations and orders.

The court ordered that the declarations and orders be set aside. The court found that the declarations and orders were irregular and directly affected Boyd's rights, leading to the setting aside of these declarations and orders. The court's decision was based on the irregularity of the declarations and orders and the direct effect on Boyd's rights. The court's order to set aside the declarations and orders was a result of the findings of irregularity and direct effect on Boyd's rights.