Welcome to the fourth 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 and Gavin McLeod. General enquiries can be sent to: commercial@st-philips.com.
Supreme Court
Hirachand v Hirachand [2024] UKSC 34: Decision resolving the vexed question as to whether or not a “success fee” payable under a CFA could be provided for when the Court makes an order under s 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Held: provision could not be made for a success fee.
Frenkel v LA Micro Group (UK) Ltd [2024] UKSC 42: A vendor-purchaser constructive trust may arise notwithstanding that the purchaser was the sole trustee of the subject matter (a share) as legal owner. Permission to advance a new point (namely, that s 53(1)(c) of the Law of Property Act 1925 did not apply to equitable interests in anything other than land) was refused as being unarguable.
High Court
Re Morris [2024] EWHC 2554 (Ch):
A successful application by a longstanding husband for relief against the forfeiture rule (under s 2(2) of the Forfeiture Act 1982) after he assisted his late wife in the means of her suicide in Switzerland. The case was described as “clear and compelling”.
Armstrong v Armstrong [2024] EWHC 2989 (Ch): A successful farm proprietary estoppel claim, in which the Court was satisfied that the background evidence (e.g.) as to C son’s then comparative insecurity, and as to the personality of the deceased, meant that the latter would have made firm promises (not just statements of present testamentary intention) – being ones on which the son reasonably relied to his detriment. Andrew Sutcliffe KC rejected what he said were “bold” submissions that C had been an incapable farmer who had remained on site in abuse of generosity and who had been allowed to stay out of familial affection. The Court did not consider that rent-free accommodation in the farmhouse, and a comparatively modest farming wage, had in any meaningful way outweighed the detriment stemming from giving over a life to the pursuit of the farm business and foregoing other likely opportunities at university and beyond.
Butt v Butt [2024] EWHC 3222 (Ch): Decision of HHJ Williams sitting as High Court Judge in Birmingham. Held that D1 held certain shares on resulting or constructive trust for D3 and D4, who had made contributions to the acquisition of the shares and not mere loans. Ali Tabari of St Philips Chambers appeared for the successful Claimant in the litigation.
High Court Continued
Ponsford v Sali [2024] EWHC 2748 (Ch):
Interesting appeal which held that (contrary to the decision below) a particular property was partnership property as opposed to being held by Mr Ponsford for Mr Sali beneficially. The case contains a detailed analysis of the operation of s 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925.
Dattani v Ferns Solicitors [2024] EWHC 2980 (Ch):
Conveyancing solicitors had transferred the net proceeds of sale to one of the clients despite a Form K restriction showing there was an interim charging order, which, it was alleged, amounted to breach of a constructive trust and dishonest assistance. The Master had granted an application striking out the claims. Thompsell J allowed an appeal in part; the dishonest assistance claim should proceed.
Decisions of High Court Matters
Connell v Connell [2024] EWHC 2646 (Ch):
Master Pester removed a son executor who had issued a caveat against the will and made various demands, including in relation to a hotchpot clause he found objectionable. The Court removed him by reference to the breakdown of the administration, his unsuitable temperament and character, and the demands he had made (although, in the event, the caveat had lapsed and he had not advanced his initial challenge to the will). The Court did not remove his father and brother as executors, holding that the case for their removal was not strong enough, and any mistakes on their part insufficient.
Crew v Oakley [2024] EWHC 2847 (Ch):
A highly-publicised contentious probate case in which the Court found (against an allegation that she lacked the capacity to do so, which was dismissed) that a testatrix had torn up a will and thereby revoked it by destruction, having undertaken most of the tearing herself before then nodding her affirmation to her solicitor’s proposal that she should complete the task for her. The Court found that the will had to be entirely torn, but also that it had been (through combination of the testatrix’s own actions and the authority she gave to the solicitor). The allegation of testamentary incapacity had been credibly made as respects delirium which “waxed and waned”. The Court nevertheless concluded that the will was made in a lucid interval, as reasonably judged by an experienced probate solicitor.
Read v Hoarean [2024] EWHC 3274 (Ch):
This was a dispute as to the disposal of a body, with invocation of the inherent jurisdiction or alternatively s.116 of the Senior Courts Act in terms of passing over one person entitled to letters of administration (one parent) in favour of another (the other parent). Under s.116, a limited grant was made to the father to enable him to arrange the disposal of ashes on Dartmoor, a place it was clear the deceased was fondly attached to. Under the inherent jurisdiction, the Court also directed that there should be a prior funeral which the mother could attend, and that certain of the deceased’s effects should be given to the mother.
Raja v ATM Law [2024] EWHC 2782:
C owned a property over which D3 had an interim charging order securing a judgment debt. C opposed the making final of the order on the basis that he lacked a beneficial interest in reliance on a trust deed. Held: C had not discharged the burden of showing that he lacked a beneficial interest in the property; the Court was not satisfied that the deed was genuine (executed on the date on its face) for a variety of reasons e.g. a failure to call the independent witness and a failure to produce the original document.
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.
