Welcome to the first 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
A & Ors v C & Ors: [2026] UKPC 11: Decision on appeal from Bermuda concerning trust protectors – a common feature of offshore trusts but something of a rarity in this jurisdiction. A general but useful introduction to trust protectors is found at [5] – [12]. More specifically, the question raised was whether (by default) protectors are limited to reviewing the lawfulness of the trustee’s proposed exercise of their power (“the Narrow Role”) or whether they can use an independent discretion in deciding whether to consent by reference to their own view of the merits of the trustees’ proposal (“the Wider Role”). Allowing the appeal, the Privy Council favoured the Wider Role in a decision which is likely to be of some considerable significance in offshore trust litigation.
Decisions of High Court Judges
House v Helme [2026] EWHC 75 (Ch): Interesting costs decision of HHJ Matthews on a PR removal claim in which complaints were made of delay and conflict of interest. The successful claimants were awarded their costs and the defendants were deprived of their indemnity from the estate. The decision contains an illuminating discussion on whether the executor is under a duty to inform legatees at [40] – [49].
Ginger v Mickleburgh [2026] EWHC 100 (Ch): Rather lengthly Will validity decision in which it was concluded that the testator had been suffering from an insane delusion or disorder (i.e. fourth limb of Banks v Goodfellow). The law is set out at [218] – [221]. A challenge on the basis of fraudulent calumny failed.
Morgan v The Estate of Terence Morgan [2026] EWHC 20 (Ch): Low value claim concerning whether inter vivos cash transfers to the deceased were held on trust for the claimants. C1’s claim failed and C3’s claim succeeded in a case which “turns entirely on the facts” [6].
Reid-Roberts v Mei-Lin [2026] EWHC 49 (Ch): Insolvency appeal to Cawson J, which, materially, concerned whether or not a person had transferred his beneficial interest in the course of a WhatsApp and email exchange prior to being made bankrupt. The first instance decision was upheld because the relevant communications did not evince an intention to unequivocally and immediately relinquish an interest in the relevant property (distinguishing Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWCA Civ 1648) and (in any event) the relevant WhatsApp messages did not comply with s 53(1) (a) or (c) of the LPA 1925. Vacant possession of the property should be given in 2027 rather than 2032 (as ordered at first instance).
Decisions of High Court Judges continued
Stephenson v Daley [2026] EWHC 53 (Ch): Will case which illustrates the danger/ difficulty of succeeding on want of knowledge of approval where that is the sole ground relied upon. Note: [10] “They accept that the Deceased executed the Will, that it was prepared by a solicitor, that its execution was witnessed by that solicitor and his assistant, that the Deceased had capacity to execute it, and that she was not coerced into doing so.. It is not irrational. Nor is it a long document. There is no suggestion that the Deceased could not read, or had become incapable of reading it. In circumstances like this, there is rather little room for a court to find that the Deceased who signed the Will did not know and approve of its contents.” HHJ Cadwallader would also have dismissed the challenge on the basis of laches.
Uddin v Uddin [2026] EWHC 150 (Ch): Appeal allowed against a decision that a property was not held on trust for two brothers. Lack of detriment was fatal to the first instance finding that a constructive trust arose at a Bisar (form of family conciliation process).
Cator v Marquess of Bath [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch): Decision of HHJ Matthews acceding to an application for an order appointing an independent solicitor to represent beneficiaries in a Public Trustee v Cooper application. Judgment contains a typically erudite discussion of the relevant principles from [8].
Fotheringhame v Nelson [2026] EWHC 632 (Ch): Somewhat optimistic and unsuccessful appeal of a Stack v Dowden type case, which received short shrift from HHJ Klein.
Hoarean v Read [2026] EWHC 763 (Ch): Unsuccessful appeal against a decision as to what should happen to the ashes of an 18 year old tragically killed on railway tracks.
Peters v Joseph [2026] EWHC 775 (Ch): At first instance a declaration of trust had been found to be a forgery. On appeal this finding was held to be unsafe and a re-trial ordered due to i) fresh evidence and ii) a failure to properly consider the inherent unlikelihood of serial acts of forgery.
Ugolor v Ugolor [2026] EWHC 745 (Ch): Will challenge which failed on capacity but succeeded on want of knowledge and approval. Clear and concise summaries of the law from [61] and [77]. Claims on the basis of testamentary and equitable undue influence failed.
Decisions of High Court Masters
Harris v Quantick [2026] EWHC 137 (Ch): Costs decision on the claimants’ own removal application, which were ordered to be paid partly by the Estate and mainly by the first defendant (with no right to an indemnity in respect of unrecovered costs).
Smith v Campbell [2026] EWHC 144 (Ch): Another costs decision on a removal claim (as to which see Q4, 2025). There would be no order as to costs between the parties and the trustees would not be deprived of their right to an indemnity (whether or not there is jurisdiction to order a partial deprivation was left open).
O’Herlihy v Taylor [2026] EWHC 505 (Ch): Should an adult claiming to have been treated as a child of the family of the deceased be permitted to bring a 1975 Act claim over 4 years late? Deputy Master Henderson, in a judgment of 303 paragraphs, concluded in the negative.
Woolfson v Woolfson [2026] EWHC 613 (Ch): A Probate-type claim (variously described as “incoherent” and “hopeless”) issued by a litigant in person was struck out.
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.
