Welcome to the second 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, Gavin McLeod TEP and Charles Towl.
General enquiries can be sent to: commercial@st-philips.com.
Privy Council
Pascall v Graham [2025] UKPC 26: Interesting decision concerning knowledge and approval on appeal from Trinidad and Tobago (where the law is the same). The deceased had executed a one-page will, which left his whole estate to a Roman Catholic charity to the chagrin of his three children. The decision is significant for its discussion of Gill v Woodall [2010] EWCA Civ 1430 in which Lord Neuberger questioned the value of the traditional “two-stage approach” in knowledge and approval cases. The UKPC pointed out that (unlike in Gill) there was no a copious amount of evidence and proceeded on the traditional two-stage approach. The appeal was dismissed on the facts, meaning that the challenge to the Will failed.
Court of Appeal
Nasir v Begum [2025] EWCA Civ 587: Decision considering whether land which is part of a deceased’s estate (and thus held on statutory trust) is “subject to a trust” for the purposes of the Land Registration Act 2002 and, so, capable of defeating a claim for adverse possession. The Court rejected that argument, finding that the statutory trust is simply a means of imposing trustee-like duties on personal representatives during the administration of the estate. In that sense, such a trust is similar to a trust which arises over a bankrupt’s estate when a trustee in bankruptcy is appointed. The Court’s decision draws a clear line between conventional trust structures (i.e. those comprising a settlor, trustee, and beneficiary) and those which arise to enable office-holders to perform a function.
Lorenz v Caruana [2025] EWCA Civ 606: Case in which the siblings of the deceased contended that his surviving civil partner held half of the residuary estate on secret trust for them, which was the subject of an unsuccessful strike out/ reverse summary judgment application (reversed on a first appeal). The siblings alleged that the secret trust arose in the context of the deceased’s long-standing aversion to paying tax. Examining ‘the three certainties’ the Court of Appeal noted contemporaneous references to the legatee having been given “instructions” by the deceased, and to solicitors not putting anything in writing “so HMRC do not catch wind”. The Court accepted that an intention to avoid paying tax does not inevitably mean there could not also have been a simultaneous intention that assets received by a legatee (with intent to avoid such tax) should then be held for others. The Court upheld the Master’s decision and directed that the case proceed to trial.
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
Hubbard v Hubbard [2025] EWHC 855 (Ch): Lengthy but interesting judgment of Master Marsh (sitting in retirement) following the trial of an account in common form in respect of trustees’ dealings with a trust of land (in the context of a family dispute). There is a very helpful summary of the legal principles at [39], followed by a detailed factual analysis. The judgment would be highly instructive for anyone involved in or contemplating a claim for an account.
Earl of Yarmouth v Ragley Trust Company Limited [2025] EWHC 1099 (Ch): Decision of Master Brightwell widely reported in the press in respect of a claim for removal of two trust corporations as co-trustees, but which appears to have captured public attention by virtue of the aristocratic falling-out (between son and heir and parents) forming the backdrop to the proceedings. After setting out the wide-ranging allegations against the trustees, the judgment contains a helpful summary of the law from [139]. The claim for removal was dismissed on the facts.
Sullivan v Sullivan [2025] EWHC 1072 (Ch): Another judgment of Master Marsh, this time in respect of an order rescinding an inter vivos declaration of trust on the grounds of mistake, albeit the claim was brought by the settlor’s widow (i.e. after death). The Master found that the settlor was mistaken about the legal character and nature of the document he signed, thinking (wrongly) that it was an informal declaration of his wishes upon his death whereas in fact it was a trust on which he received no advice.
Manolete Partners PLC v Rahman [2025] EWHC 1384 (Ch): Claim for orders for sale of three properties (registered in the sole name of D1) to enforce final charging orders. D2 (D1’s wife) claimed a 50% share in each property (one of which was the matrimonial family home) pursuant to a common intention constructive trust. The judgment of Master Clark contains a refreshingly pithy summary of the legal principles from [12] (including a reminder of the need for detrimental reliance). On the facts, it was held that D2 had established neither a common intention nor detrimental reliance in respect of any of the three properties in question. Just being married to someone is not enough to claim a 50% interest against that person’s creditors!
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.
