Miles Sealy Connell & Anor v Timothy James Boyton Connell
[2024] EWHC 2646 (Ch)
Karen Lane v Susan Dorothy Lane & Ors
9 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 275 (Ch)
High Court
A family fought over a will and who should manage the money after someone died. The judge decided the money from a farm business still belonged to the intended person, even though the business closed before the will-maker died. The judge also replaced the person in charge of the money because they weren't doing a good job.
Key Facts
- •Dispute over the effect of a will and estate administration.
- •Monica Lane's will left her share and interest in a farming partnership to her son David.
- •Monica's executrix, Susan, argued the gift adeemed due to Monica's incapacity, dissolving the partnership.
- •Karen Lane, David's widow and personal representative of his estate, challenged this and sought Susan's replacement as executrix.
- •Poor relationship between Karen and Susan.
- •Estate valued at just under £2.5m.
Legal Principles
Principles of will interpretation are the same as contract interpretation (natural and ordinary meaning, purpose, other provisions, known facts, common sense).
Marley v Rawlings [2015] AC 129
A specific gift adeems if its subject matter ceases to exist or fundamentally changes at the testator's death.
Theobald on Wills (19th ed, 2021)
Court can replace a personal representative if it's in the beneficiaries' best interests (Administration of Justice Act 1985, s.50).
Letterstedt v Broers (1884) 9 AC 371; Thomas & Agnes Carvell Foundation v Carvell [2008] Ch 395
A partner's 'share and interest' includes their ultimate entitlement upon partnership dissolution and winding up.
Lindley & Banks on Partnership (20th ed, 2022); Duncan v The MFV Marigold PD145 (2006) 35 SLT 975; Sandhu v Gill [2006] Ch 456; Rojoda Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (2018) 368 ALR 734
Partnership Act 1890, s. 43: A retiring or deceased partner's share becomes a debt upon dissolution, but this doesn't extinguish the share or interest during the winding-up process.
Partnership Act 1890, s.43; Knox v Gye (1871-72) LR 5 HL 656; Duncan v The MFV Marigold PD145 (2006) 35 SLT 975
Outcomes
Construction Claim: The gift to David did not adeem.
Monica retained a 'share and interest' even after incapacity and dissolution, as this includes the right to receive the proceeds from the winding-up process. The change in the nature of the share wasn't substantial enough for ademption.
Removal Claim: Susan was removed as executrix, and an independent solicitor was appointed.
Susan's administration was unsatisfactory: delays, lack of communication, unresolved disputes, and failure to provide necessary information. The Court prioritised the best interests of all beneficiaries, considering the poor relationship between Karen and Susan and the potential for future disputes.