Karen Lane v Susan Dorothy Lane & Ors
[2024] EWHC 275 (Ch)
Adrian John Gill v Malcom Kirk Gill
21 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 641 (Ch)
High Court
A family fought over their mom's farm after she died. One brother, Malcolm, caused lots of delays and tried to get more of the farm than he was entitled to. The judge decided Malcolm had to pay back money for using the farm without permission, plus other money he owed. The farm was eventually sold, and the remaining money was split fairly among the siblings.
Key Facts
- •Family dispute over the estate of Rosemary Martha Gill.
- •Protracted dispute involving siblings Adrian, Malcolm, Pamela, and Nigel.
- •Rosemary and Gerald Gill were farmers who owned Upper Latherford Farm.
- •Rosemary gifted Malcolm a 50% share in the farming business in 2009.
- •Rosemary's will divided her property equally among her children.
- •Malcolm made various unsuccessful claims regarding his entitlement to the farm.
- •A legal charge on the farm from Rosemary's mother Martha created complications in the sale.
- •Malcolm was removed as co-executor of Rosemary's estate.
- •The farm was eventually sold to Nigel Gill.
- •Adrian Gill brought a claim against Malcolm for losses incurred due to delays in the estate administration.
Legal Principles
Court's power to determine questions arising in estate administration
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) r.64.2
Duties of executors, including avoiding conflicts of interest and dealing properly with estate assets
Williams, Mortimer and Sunnucks, 21st edition, paragraphs 51.02, 51.03, 51.09
Liability of surviving partner for winding up partnership affairs and debts owed to deceased partner's estate
Partnership Act 1890, sections 33, 38, 43
Liability of a trespasser for mesne profits
Outcomes
Malcolm is not liable for losses caused by preventing the removal of the legal charge.
Malcolm's actions were taken after his removal as executor; his conflicts of interest prevented him from acting sooner. The delay was primarily due to the disagreement over simple vs. compound interest calculation, not Malcolm's deliberate actions as executor.
Malcolm is liable for the outstanding balance of Rosemary's share in the New Farming Partnership (£25,362).
Malcolm continued the farming business as a sole trader after Rosemary's death, using partnership assets. The value of Rosemary's share is calculated based on probate valuations and partnership accounts.
Malcolm is liable for rent for his occupation of the farm (£51,644).
Malcolm occupied the farm as a sole trader, not as an executor, after Rosemary's death and failed to vacate as agreed. The court calculates the rent based on market value.
Malcolm is liable to account for wayleave payments received (£1,512).
The wayleave payments were received for estate property during Malcolm's occupation.
Malcolm's claims for repairs and the workshop are largely dismissed.
Insufficient evidence of expenses and Malcolm's actions in frustrating the farm sale outweigh any claim for remuneration. The workshop was properly dealt with by Adrian.
The draft final estate accounts are approved with adjustments reflecting the judgment.
This incorporates the financial outcomes of the case.