In this article, Christopher Buckingham explores Sutcliffe v Sutcliffe [2005] EWHC 3058(Ch), an overlooked probate case concerning ownership, occupation charges and estate administration after death?
The home of the deceased is an interesting subject within the general field of contentious probate work, but one which appears to have attracted relatively little attention. An informative article has been written by James E Petts on the sadly unreported case of Eccleston v Lambert 19 May 2023 (CC (Central London)), which also discusses the difficult case of Williams v Holland [1965] 1 WLR 739 and Terunnanse v Terrunnanse [1968] AC 1086, the latter being authority for the proposition that a revocable licence is automatically determined by the death of the licensor.
However, I have recently come across the case of Sutcliffe v Sutcliffe [2005] EWHC 3058 (Ch); an unreported decision which appears to have been cited neither in any subsequent (reported) decision nor in any of the leading practitioner works. But it is a decision of HHJ Norris QC (as he then was) and, for that reason alone, worthy of careful consideration.
The facts of the case are as follows. The Deceased died in 1986. Her simple home drawn will left her entire estate to be divided equally between her two sons, Peter and Paul. Peter obtained letters of administration with will annexed. Peter became concerned that the administration had not concluded and discovered that his mother remained the registered proprietor of an English property 18 years after her death. Paul contended the property belonged to him alleging that he had brought his brother’s interest for £10,000. On this point, the Judge found in favour of Peter.
It was held that Peter was entitled to a declaration as to the English property continuing to form part of the estate and that it ought to be vested in both brothers; the relatively obscure (and infrequently cited) s 43(2) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 was successfully relied upon “[I]f Paul will not execute an assent and an appropriate transfer, as Peter’s solicitors have requested him to do, then the same result shall be achieved by a vesting order. I will make such an order.” With the property in a deteriorating state and both brothers living abroad, the Judge directed a sale of the property.
Subject to a provision for Paul (who did not attend trial) to apply to vary or discharge the order, the Judge dealt with an account on a summary basis. Paul had occupied the property for 22 months from the date of his mother’s death and was ordered to account at a monthly figure for that period, and for a later period of 13 years during which it was let to tenants. Interest was not allowed in respect of the first period of time on the basis that Peter had been agreeable to Paul having the use of the property. Allowances were made (in Paul’s favour) in respect of certain renovation and letting costs. A similar account was taken in respect of a Spanish flat, which, by the time of trial, had been sold and the proceeds divided.
Sutcliffe is an illuminating case, which is both clear and authoritative. It provides (in my view) confirmation that the County Court was right in Eccleston to distinguish Williams in terms of the point at which the occupier should be liable to be charged for occupation. It should be better-known.
Christopher Buckingham, St Philips Chambers, 16.12.25
Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure that the law in this article is correct, it is intended to give a general overview of the law for educational and/or informational purposes. It is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice and should not be relied upon for this purpose.
This article represents the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the view of any other member of St Philips Chambers.
