Welcome to the second quarterly case update of 2026, which seeks to summarise a particularly busy three months in the field of Probate and Trusts.
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.
Court of Appeal
Kanabar v Kanabar (Deceased) [2026] EWCA Civ 582: What is the legal position where an appellant dies intestate have being granted permission to appeal against a financial remedies order in the family court and no one is willing to apply for letters of administration?
A first appeal had proceeded and been allowed (the judge having considered and rejected adjourning, dismissing or striking it out). The Court of Appeal disagreed.
The decision contains a useful discussion of CPR 19.12(1) at [64], applicable only in straightforward cases (limb (a)) or where there is someone able and willing to represent the estate (limb (b)). However, the fundamental problem was that the CPR does not apply to family proceedings, and the FPR contains no equivalent rule. The appeal should have been struck out.
Decisions of High Court Judges
Godwin v Godwin [2026] EWHC 923 (Ch): Dispute between the deceased’s two sons as to disposal of the body. A typically learned and thoughtful decision of HHJ Klein with a helpful summary of the law at [69] – [80].
Hodgson v Hodgson [2026] EWHC 922 (Ch): Decision of HHJ Davis-White KC involving a question of will construction (useful summary of principles from [95]), together with unsuccessful proprietary estoppel and 1975 Act claims (brought by an adult child).
McDaniel v Talbot [2026] EWHC 928 (Ch): Surprising 1975 Act case in which an adult child was awarded a six-figure sum, notwithstanding an annual household income of some £57,500. A former estrangement had been overcome.
O’Boyle v Wallis [2026] EWHC 951 (Ch): Appeal concerning a costs order made against a person appointed under CPR 19.12(1)(b) and subsequently made bankrupt. It was held that the appellant did have standing to bring an appeal, but that the Master’s approach (in equating a person so appointed with a PR) had been incorrect and that costs should not have been awarded in respect of the period prior to appointment.
Patel v O’Sullivan [2026] EWHC 801 (Ch): Unsuccessful will challenge on basis of want of knowledge and approval and undue influence
Cator v Marquess of Bath [2026] EWHC 1045 (Ch): Substantive Public Trustee v Cooper decision following on from an earlier joinder application noted last quarter ([2026] EWHC 209 (Ch)). As expected from a decision of HHJ Matthews, the judgment contains a scholarly summary of the relevant principles. The Court approved a proposed exercise of trustees’ power of advancement.
Decisions of High Court Judges continued
Ludlow Trust Company Limited v Homfray [2026] EWHC 1107 (Ch): Another decision of HHJ Matthews, but this time concerning a) the interpretation of a settlement and b) whether the settlement could be administered on the footing that a 95 year old lady would have no further children (as to which, unsurprisingly, the answer was in the affirmative).
MacDougall v Thomas [2026] EWHC 1142 (Ch): Lengthy decision (but well worth reading in full) concerning the validity of a will and also various inter vivos transfers – helpful summary of legal principles in respect of the latter (and the duties of an attorney) from [192].
Thirsk v Thirsk [2026] EWHC 1501 (Ch): Very high value 1975 Act claim by a surviving wife. Cusworth J declined to make an order for the £16m she sought but rather made an order giving effect to D1’s offer worth about half that sum.
Mashal v Javed [2026] EWHC 1269 (Ch): Monies paid by the Claimants were received in a fiduciary capacity and held on constructive trust; the application of the monies to purchase properties was a breach of trust and fiduciary duty.
Matyas v Daniel [2026] EWHC 1368 (Ch): Claim by the life and business partner of the deceased to a beneficial interest in various properties, which failed – there being no understanding that the properties were to be owned jointly and no joint financial contribution. A 1975 Act claim failed for an array of reasons, including that the deceased was not domiciled in the jurisdiction.
Ocorian Private Trustees (Jersey) Ltd [2026] EWHC 1575 (Ch): Somewhat involved but interesting decision of HHJ Matthews
concerning the relationship between a blessing application in Jersey, possession proceedings in England and Henderson v Henderson abuse.
Decisions of High Court Masters
Fisher v Fisher [2026] EWHC 1508 (Ch): A must-read decision of Chief Master Shuman concerning a long-running administration raising issues of works to estate property, occupation rent and expenses. There is an excellent summary of a PR’s duties at [15].
Braithwaite v Slade [2026] EWHC 1181 (Ch): Decision as to the construction of a trust deed. Held: the proceeds of a property did not have to be used to buy a replacement, but could be used to provide an income for the beneficiary.
In the matter of the Jesus Fellowship Community Trust [2026] EWHC 1080 (Ch): Discussion and application of the principle of extended Re Benjamin relief – the Court was asked to authorise a procedure for identifying further claims before distributing and winding up the Trust.
Teixeira v Moaven [2026] EWHC 1215 (Ch): Declarations of trust executed at the end of the deceased’s life were held to be sham. As to costs: [2026] EWHC 1542 (Ch).
Wilkinson v Kirkham [2026] EWHC 1006 (Ch): Construction of a will case in which a gift “to the daughter of Lily Mason” was held to benefit two daughters.
Brinner v Brinner [2026] EWHC 1462 (Ch): Relatively unusual s 50 case decided by Deputy Master Valentine. The court should not take into account the fact that the claimant was a potential creditor of the estate [30], however, D1’s position of conflict and the breakdown in relations narrowly justified the substitution of an independent administrator.
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.
