Antonio v Williams & McBean
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Johns |
| Judgment Date | 22 September 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 2383 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: PT 2019 000980 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Year | 2022 |
In the matter of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
In the estate of Sharon Marcia Antonio McBean (Deceased)
[2022] EWHC 2383 (Ch)
HHJ Johns KC
Sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Case No: PT 2019 000980
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
PROPERTY TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
The Rolls Building
Fetter Lane
London
EC4A 1NL
Miss Zoe Gibbon (instructed by Ozon solicitors) for the Claimant
Ms Angela Hall (instructed by Taylor Rose MW) for the First Defendant
Ms Sarah Egan (instructed by Shoosmiths LLP) for the Second Defendant
Hearing dates: 30 June & 1 July 2022
Written submissions: 6 July and 13 July 2022
APPROVED JUDGMENT
This judgment is handed down by email to the parties' representatives and release to The National Archives at 2pm on Thursday 22 September 2022
HHJ Johns KC:
This case concerns the estate of Sharon Marcia Antonio McBean ( Sharon) who died aged 53 on 11 February 2016. Ryan Antonio ( Ryan) brings this claim for reasonable financial provision out of Sharon's estate on the basis that he was treated as a child of the family or was being maintained by Sharon. He is now 12 years old. Being a minor, he brings the claim by his litigation friend. That is his father, Umar Ali ( Umar). He is Sharon's brother. The claim is brought against Jamaal George Yusuf Williams ( Jamaal). He is Sharon's son and a beneficiary of the estate. Enid McBean ( Enid) has been joined as the second defendant. She is Ryan's grandmother.
Factual and procedural background
I start with the factual background. As much of this was disputed, my account includes some findings of fact.
Ryan was born on 2 January 2010. His mother did not look after him; contacting social services when he was born for them to make arrangements for his care. They contacted Umar. Umar did look after Ryan, but only with very considerable help from his sister, Sharon.
Indeed, I find that Ryan was maintained by Sharon for the whole of his life until her death.
First, Jamaal's own evidence, which I accept, was that Ryan came straight from hospital to 42 Chestnut Rise, the home of Sharon and Enid. And that, with Enid, Sharon took full time care of Ryan; Umar “ merely coming and going on fleeting visits”. He told me further that even once Umar had his flat, Ryan remained in the care, including financially, of Sharon and Enid.
Second, this must have been necessary for an extended period anyway near the start of Ryan's life as Umar was imprisoned for 17 months. And Umar's evidence is also to the effect that, both on his release, and on the later expiry of his licence period, Ryan continued to live at 42 Chestnut Rise with Sharon.
I find also that Sharon's contribution to Ryan's maintenance extended to the bulk of his everyday needs. That was Umar's evidence (see para.26 of his first witness statement) and fits with the parties' circumstances. Umar was very limited in what he could contribute. That was his own evidence. And was reflected in Jamaal's evidence; Jamaal telling me that since Umar's release from prison he has not had a steady job and is in a significant amount of debt – para.20 of his first witness statement. Further, while Enid will have helped, she too has been dependent on Sharon financially. Jamaal's evidence was that Sharon paid the mortgage on 42 Chestnut Rise from at least 2002. I accept that evidence. Insofar as Umar and Enid said otherwise, they were generally somewhat confused in their evidence (Enid to a greater and Umar to a somewhat lesser extent). Jamaal gave clearer evidence which gave me, generally, more confidence in it. I also accept Jamaal's evidence that Enid was in very significant debt – see para.9 of his third witness statement. That evidence received some support from documents showing earlier substantial mortgage arrears. That Sharon met the bulk of Ryan's everyday needs is further supported by the terms of her will. She refers to “ the start in life I gave him”.
Just one day before she died, so on 10 February 2016, Sharon made that will. It included this:
“ The sale of property namely 216 Davidson Road of which 50% share will go to my mother Enid McBean. The other 50% to Jamaal Williams in trust to assist to give the amount of £10,000 to each of my brothers, Latvia McBean and Umar Alia. The amount of £10,000 will go to my sister Barbara Charles. Any remainder should be shared equally between Jamaal Williams and held in trust for the education of Ryan Antonio McBean on the condition that he makes positive decisions for his future, to be determined by my son Jamaal.
I give my flat 8a Voce Road to Jamaal to look after in trust for Ryan to live in as he comes of age. A portion of any monies pertaining to the flat to go towards helping him go to University. My intention is to ensure his future is a success and to provide him with the start in life I gave him. Should he not attend university, any constructive career plan as determined by Jamaal Williams will satisfy the terms of the trust. With regards to the care of Ryan Antonio McBean, my wish is for him to be provided with the same consistency and positive influence as I have provided him this far. I wish for my son Jamaal Williams to play an active role in his life, and for him to continue at the same school he attends to avoid any disruption to his progress.”
The will also names Ryan as one of three beneficiaries of the residuary estate; the other two being Jamaal and Enid.
My assessment is that Sharon did assume responsibility, indeed primary responsibility, for Ryan's maintenance. That was seen in what she in fact did. And in her wishes as expressed in her will. The terms in which Jamaal dealt with this issue are also instructive. He referred to Sharon as having “ no formal legal responsibilities towards Ryan” and no “ formal parenting responsibility” (para.39 of his first witness statement). He expressed himself in that way, in my judgment, because she did, in substance, take on the role of mother to Ryan. She did treat him as her child. That is further reflected in the certificate of dedication in the trial bundle dated 29 April 2012 which referred to Sharon as Ryan's “ adopted mother”. While Umar was questioned about this document, it was not put to him it was forged, and I would not have found it was forged. While I do not accept all that Umar told me – his evidence seemed to me sometimes confused and often vague – I am confident he was not seeking to mislead me in any way. He gave evidence truthfully. And the certificate fits with the other evidence I have already referred to. As does Umar's evidence that Ryan called Sharon “ mum” which I therefore also accept (despite it not according with Jamaal's evidence on this).
As at her death, Sharon was sole registered proprietor of one property, namely 216 Davidson Road, Croydon CR0 6DF. She was also a joint registered proprietor of three further properties.
11.1 8a Voce Road. This had been purchased by Sharon under the right to buy scheme in 2002 and has always been a letting property. Jamaal was added as a joint owner of it in 2010
11.2 113 Moordown, Woolwich, London SE18 3NA. This began life as the property of Sharon's former husband; the father of Jamaal. It became jointly owned by him and Sharon. Later, and as at the time of her death, the joint registered proprietors were Sharon and Jamaal.
11.3 42 Chestnut Rise, Woolwich, London SE18 1RJ. This was the home of Sharon, Enid and Ryan. Sharon was the joint registered proprietor, from 2002 with Enid; Enid having been the sole registered proprietor before then.
On Sharon's death, 8a Voce Road and 113 Moordown became wholly owned beneficially by Jamaal. 8a Voce Road remains let out. 113 Moordown is the home of him and his family. Both are subject to mortgages. 42 Chestnut Rise has been wholly owned beneficially, at least since Sharon's death, by Enid. It is also subject to a mortgage. It has been her home, though she has most recently been living at 216 Davidson Road; some works being required to 42 Chestnut Rise.
The reading of the will after Sharon's death sparked this regrettable family dispute. The executors renounced. Letters of administration were granted to Mr Williams on 7 August 2018; wrongly, as Sharon had not died intestate.
This claim was issued on 27 November 2019. It includes seeking an order that Sharon's severable share in 8a Voce Road be treated as part of her estate. It also asks for an order permitting the claim to be made more than 6 months after the grant of representation.
The claim first came before the Court on 6 March 2020. Deputy Master Arkush revoked the grant of letters of administration and required Jamaal to apply for a grant of probate or letters with the will annexed. He also directed that the claim proceed as a claim under CPR Part 7. The claim came back before the Court for directions on 18 January 2021. Deputy Master Nurse ordered amendment of the claim so as to name Enid as the second defendant. That order was made in these circumstances. Part of Jamaal's case is that any provision for Ryan should be made out of Sharon's severable share in 42 Chestnut Rise. But Umar's evidence included his understanding that “ Sharon managed to transfer the property into joint names without my mother's knowledge …” (para.27 of his second witness statement) so that it should not be considered joint property at all. Directions towards trial, including for a witness statement from Enid, were given on 30 August 2021. On 18 February 2022, Roth J made an interim injunction restraining any registered disposition of 42 Chestnut Rise, 113 Moordown, or 8a Voce Road. That order was made on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial