Randall v Randall
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- DEPUTY MASTER COLLAÇO MORAES
Areas of Law
- Probate and Succession
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The trial focused on whether the Claimant had sufficient legal standing to challenge the estate of Sylvia Joyce Corrall, given the provisions of a Consent Order from divorce proceedings suggesting his entitlement to part of the Defendant’s inheritance. The court held that the requirement to have an interest in the estate is a substantive common law requirement, not merely procedural. The Claimant, being a creditor of a beneficiary, does not possess an interest in the estate sufficient to challenge the Will. The court ruled in favor of the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
Deputy Master Collaço Moraes
Introduction
This is the trial of a preliminary issue ordered on 9 May 2014 with the consent of the parties. At the commencement of the hearing on 6 August 2014 I expressed concern whether costs would be saved by the determination of the preliminary issue rather than dealing with all matters at a trial. However, the parties were content to proceed and as the parties had fully prepared for the hearing, any adjournment would have resulted in unnecessary wasted costs.
The preliminary issue identified to be determined is:
“ …whether, on the footing that the facts and matters set out in the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are true, the Claimant has an interest in the estate of Sylvia Joyce Corrall deceased sufficient to give him legal standing to bring a contentious probate claim therein. ”
The parties and the dispute
The Claimant and the Defendant were formerly married and are now divorced. The Defendant is the only child of the deceased Mrs Sylvia Corrall, who died on 11 March 2013. On 3 May 2013 the Defendant as executrix obtained a grant in common form of the will of the deceased bearing the date 20 October 2009 (“the Will”), with power reserved to another executor. The Defendant asserts that the Will was incorrectly dated and that the date of its execution was 20 October 2011.
By this claim the Claimant seeks pronouncement against the Will and revocation of the said grant. The Claimant challenges the validity of the Will on the ground that it was not validly executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 .
The Will
The Will after appointing the Claimant and Edwin James Attree executors and trustee provides as follows:
“2. I GIVE the following legacies free of tax:
The sum of One Hundred Thousand Pounds (£100,000) to my said daughter HILARY ANN JOCELYN RANDALL absolutely provided she survives me.
…
…
The sum of One hundred Pounds (£100) to my grandson MARTIN ALAN RANDALL C/O Miss Fiona Randall …
3. I GIVE all the residue of my estate both real and personal whatsoever and wheresoever (out of which shall be paid my funeral and testamentary expenses and my debts) and any property over which I have at my death any power of appointment to my three remaining grandchildren namely FIONA LOUISE RANDALL …. PATRICK COLIN RANDALL …. and HARRIETT CAROLINE RANDALL … absolutely in equal shares.”
In this judgment I will refer to the grandchildren referred to in clause 3 of the Will as “the remaining grand