Welcome to the third quarterly case update from the Probate and Trusts team at St Philips.
We hope that you find it helpful and informative. This update has been written by Christopher Buckingham TEP.
General enquiries can be sent to: commercial@st-philips.com.
Privy Council
Dawson-Damer v Grampian Trust Company Ltd [2025] UKPC 32: An interesting and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to challenge the decision of a corporate trustee of a family discretionary trust (on appeal from the Bahamas). The corporate trustee had made two appointments transferring the vast majority of assets into new settlements; a beneficiary of the original settlement (but not the new settlements) challenged the decision on the basis that the decision was flawed – grounded in hostility and failing to appropriately consider her needs and wishes. After a review of Pitt v Holt, it was held that the trustee was in breach of fiduciary duty but the claim failed for want of causation; the beneficiary could not show that the trustee would have acted, or even might have acted, differently had there been no breach [74].
Supreme Court
Stevens v Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd (In Liquidation) [2025] UKSC 28: Equity case considering whether there is a personal claim against a person who has dishonestly assisted a constructive trustee in dissipating the trust fund in circumstances where i) the fund held on constructive trust consisted of an unauthorised profit ii) the dishonest assistant also dishonestly assisted the trustee in making the profit in the first place. At odds with the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court majority held that there was such a claim and the dishonest assistant could not rely on set-off. A pithy summary of conclusions on the law can be found at [100]. Lord Burrows gave a dissenting judgment (which is well worth reading) from [102].
Court of Appeal
National Iranian Oil Company v Crescent Gas Corporation [2025] EWCA Civ 1211: Appeal concerning the interpretation of s 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (a declaration of trust respecting any land or any interest therein must be manifested and proved by some writing signed by some person who is able to declare such trust or by his will). At first instance, it had been held that a declaration of trust was unenforceable because it had been executed by landowner’s agent which did not satisfy s 53(1)(b) – and that a subsequent transfer fell foul of s 423 of the insolvency Act 1986. In the course of a lengthy judgment, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Judge’s primary interpretation of s 53(1)(b) but was split when it came to the question of whether the trust and beneficiary could rely on the trust; the majority agreed that reliance could not be placed on the trust and upheld the conclusion reached at first instance that an order should be made under s 423.
Decisions of High Court Judges
Rogers v Wills [2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch): Interesting and unusual case in which one of the deceased’s children sued the executor (another one of the children) to recover a six-figure sum for care given for several years before death – either in contract or unjust enrichment. It was held by HHJ Matthews that the deceased and claimant had entered into a contract in respect of care and that the estate was liable accordingly (the Judge held that if wrong on contract, the estate would be liable in unjust enrichment).
Parfitt v Jones [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch): Disputed Will case which divided siblings – two of the three alleging lack of capacity, undue influence and lack of knowledge and approval – in circumstances where one of the three siblings was excluded from all benefit. All challenges were dismissed, and, in respect of capacity it was described (at [81]) as “rather unsavoury and disrespectful to the dead to advance what I regard as a groundless case that a clearly capable testatrix…” The decision (of HHJ Keyser KC) contains concise and useful summaries of the law in the relevant areas.
Decisions of High Court Masters
Johnson v HM Attorney General [2025] EWHC 1943 (Ch): A rare decision under s 124 of the SCA 1981 and r.58 of the NCPR 1987 for sealing the will of the Deceased alleged to have been the agent “Stakeknife”. After discussion of numerous “Royal cases” and bearing in mind that the test was not a high one, it was held (by the Chancellor) that the Deceased’s will should be sealed for 70 years, that a grant in common form would be made without attaching the will and that the inheritance tax account could be filed again without a copy of the will.
Khan v Hasan [2025] EWHC 1658 (Ch): Disputed Will case brought by the Deceased’s only child on the basis of fraud alone, and which appears to have been something of a procedural car crash particularly in respect of a) expert evidence and b) the failure to lodge the Will itself (as to which there was discussion of the important decision of Payne v Payne [2018] EWCA Civ 985). The case contains a helpful reminder of burdens of proof and presumptions (from [27)]. On the facts there were so many points to arouse suspicions as to authenticity the onus fell on Ds to prove the Will was genuine which, on the facts, they failed to do.
Marcus v Marcus [2025] EWHC 1696 (Ch): Unsuccessful appeal against the decision noted in (Q3, 2024) – D fell within the class of beneficiaries defined as “children” even though (unbeknownst to the settlor) he was not not one of the settlor’s biological children (but had been treated as such).
Armstrong v Armstrong [2025] EWHC 2054 (Ch): Remedy judgment in proprietary estoppel/Inheritance Act case noted, as to liability, in (Q4, 2024). A notable point which weighed with the Judge was the importance of achieving a “clean break” – a life interest in a particular property would be inappropriate because it would entail the parties living next door to each other [91].
In the Estate of Patricia Fassam, Decd [2025] EWHC 2128 (Ch): Practical decision granting a form of Benjamin Order to the executors in respect of distribution of a trust fund where the trust instrument could not be found.
Fernandez v Fernandez [2025] EWHC 2373 (Ch): Unsuccessful appeal against the removal of the appellant as executor and trustee. Decision of HHJ Matthews, which contains a comprehensive summary of the law from [48].
Decisions of High Court Masters
Karim v Steele [2025] EWHC 2060 (Ch): Rare example of a claim succeeding on the basis of undue influence, alternatively, fraudulent calumny. The claim was brought by the Deceased’s long-term live-in carer who was the executor and beneficiary of a will made in 2012; she successfully impugned a will made in 2015 in favour of D2 – a married man who appears to have formed an unhealthy relationship with the Deceased at the end of her life.
Hilton v Woolfe [2025] EWHC 2285 (Ch): Somewhat involved but interesting case relating to the will of a man who had died as long ago as 2002. The case contains discussions as to the interest of a beneficiary in an unadministered estate, the constitution of a will trust and assent.
Stein v Jaffe [2025] EWHC 2334 (Ch): Rather unusual case concerning whether or not $2M was the subject of a declaration of trust. The decision of Master Brightwell contains a helpful reminder (from [68]) of the requirements to create a trust.
Disclaimer: This article has been prepared for informational purposes only, is general in its nature and should not be construed and/or relied upon as giving legal advice.
