Baynes v Hedger and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LEWISON |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWHC 1587 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC07C01001 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 14 July 2008 |
[2008] EWHC 1587 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison
Case No: HC07C01001
Mr. Thomas Dumont (instructed by Campbell Hooper LLP) for the Claimant
Mr Jeffrey Terry (instructed by Allan Janes LLP) for the 3 rd Defendant
Miss Emily Campbell (instructed by Sheridan & Co.) for the 4 th Defendant
Mr Matthew Slater (instructed by D R Sceats) for the 5 th, 6 th and 7 th Defendants
Hearing dates: 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 June and 1, 2 July 2008
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Mr. Justice Lewison:
Introduction 2
Early history 3
Mary, Hetty and money 4
Mary, Margot and Margot's health 7
Mary's will and the bequest to the Landmark Trust 10
Hetty's difficulties and Mary's will 12
The estate 24
Construction or rectification of the will 26
The legal framework 28
Locus standi 28
Living together in the same household as civil partners 29
Maintained by the deceased 32
Whether the will makes reasonable provision 35
Did Margot and Mary live in the same household as civil partners? 38
Was Margot being maintained by Mary immediately before Mary's death? 39
Was Hetty being maintained by Mary immediately before Mary's death? 41
Does the will fail to make reasonable provision for Hetty? 42
Hetty's current position 43
Margot's current position 44
The other beneficiaries 45
Obligations and responsibilities 46
The size and nature of the estate 48
Any other relevant matter including conduct 48
The value judgment 49
Result 51
Introduction
Mary Spencer Watson (“Mary”) died, aged 92, on 7 March 2006. She was a sculptress of considerable repute and lived at Dunshay Manor in Dorset. Dunshay Manor had been bought by her father, George Spencer Watson RA, himself an artist of repute, and had been the family home since the 1920s. Mary never married and had no children. She left a will dated 6 July 1977 as amended by two codicils. Her testamentary dispositions included:
i) A legacy of £2,500 to her goddaughter Henrietta Baynes (“Hetty”);
ii) Small pecuniary legacies to other friends;
iii) A specific devise of the Dunshay Manor Estate to the Landmark Trust;
iv) A bequest of her residuary estate to Margaret (“Margot”) Baynes for life, with remainder to four of Margot's children (“but not Henrietta because she has already benefited”).
Hetty and Margot now make claims against the estate under the Inheritance (Family and Dependants) Act 1975 on the ground that the will does not make reasonable provision for them. There is a subsidiary issue about the construction or rectification of the will, which I will deal with separately. The members of the family will, I hope, forgive me if I refer to them only by their given names.
Early history
Dunshay Manor was built at about the time of the Civil War in the 1640s, although it was remodelled in the early twentieth century. George Spencer Watson acquired it in 1923 and it became the family home at about that time. The Dunshay Manor estate also included two cottages, and a quantity of grazing land and woodland. George Spencer Watson designed the barn and stables in Purbeck stone. The interior of the house has a strong Arts and Crafts influence. George Spencer Watson, his wife, and his daughter Mary all used it for their artistic activities. Some further modernisation of the house took place in the 1950s or 1960s. In about 1955 Mary granted a lease of Dunshay Manor to Mr Baynes. He was then married to Margot, and they had four children: Nigel, Amanda (known as Jane), Elizabeth (“Lizzie”) and Susan (“Susie”). Hetty was born in 1956. Mary continued to live on the Estate in a small studio flat. Mr Baynes was working in or near London at the time, and commuted to Dorset for weekends. Mary and Margot developed a friendship which, within a relatively short time, became an intimate relationship. Within a few years (somewhere between 1958 and 1964) Mr Baynes left Dunshay Manor and eventually he and Margot were divorced.
All of Margot's children describe Mary as having exerted a dominant role within their family, becoming a quasi-parental figure to all of them. She took Jane, Lizzie and Susie riding; paid for dressage lessons; taught Nigel to drive; taught Susie painting and drawing; encouraged Lizzie to take up ballet; and showed Nigel a number of country and agricultural skills. Mary was also financially generous. She paid for Lizzie's school fees at Cranbourne Chase, and Hetty's fees at the Royal Ballet School. She lent Nigel the money to buy his first car; and bought Lizzie her first car in 1989. There is considerable later correspondence which shows how important Mary was in all their lives.
In 1965 Mary bought Coombe Bury Cottage, a large Regency house in Richmond. Mary, Margot, Hetty and later Lizzie moved in there. Mary and Margot shared a bedroom. The house was divided into three parts. Mary, Margot, Hetty and Lizzie lived in the middle part, and Nigel and Susie had a flat each in the outer parts. The house was sold towards the end of the decade; and from the proceeds of sale Mary gave Nigel, Lizzie and Susie money for a deposit on a flat or house. By this time Hetty was at ballet school. Mary bought another house in Fife Road, Sheen and she, Margot and Hetty moved in there. At this stage they lived at Fife Road during the week, and went to Dunshay Manor at the weekends. In 1972 Mary settled the sum of £15,000 on trust for Margot for her life with remainder to Hetty for her life, with remainder to Hetty's children. The settlement gave the trustees wide powers of advancement. The initial funding for the settlement came from the proceeds of sale of Coombe Bury Cottage.
The house in Fife Road was sold in 1974, and Mary bought another house in Kelsoe Road. Title may have been held in the joint names of Mary and Margot, but the evidence is inconclusive. By now Mary wanted to devote more time to her sculpture and spent much more time at Dunshay. Margot preferred town, and stayed in London. In her witness statement Hetty said:
“Mary began to spend most of her time at Dunshay to concentrate on her sculpture. My mother continued to reside in London where she had her own beauty salon.”
In her oral evidence Hetty described the situation. She said that her mother lived at 15 The Terrace “and sometimes Mary”. Mary had her own room there and came up from Dunshay. Hetty said that Margot's main residence was at 15 The Terrace, but did not accept that Mary and Margot lived separately. She said that it was “more interconnected than that”; and that Mary was very much a part of Margot's life and her own life.
The house in Kelsoe Road was sold in 1978 and with the proceeds of sale Margot bought a house at 15 The Terrace, Barnes. Title to the house was in her sole name, although the money for it came ultimately from Mary. In effect, therefore, the house was a gift from Mary to Margot. In her witness statement Hetty said:
“Mary continued to reside at Dunshay although she had a room at my mother's house.”
At about the time of the sale of the house in Kelsoe Road in 1978 Mary bought Hetty her first flat in Abingdon Villas in Kensington. She bought it outright, without the aid of a mortgage. It was a gift from Mary to Hetty. Hetty was, by now, a young actress with a budding career. She lived independently, and supported herself from her earnings.
In the early 1990s Margot sold 15 The Terrace and bought another house at Oak Tree Cottage, 37 Crescent Road, Kingston-upon-Thames. She still lives there.
Mary, Hetty and money
Hetty sold the flat in Abingdon Villas and after a number of purchases and sales of other flats bought a flat in Arundel Gardens, Fulham in the mid-1980s. She embarked on a programme of refurbishment of that flat, but ran into financial difficulties, even though she was making a good living as an actress. In February 1986 Mary made Hetty another gift of £6,235, which Hetty formally acknowledged in writing. In July 1986 Mary made Hetty a loan of £6,000 which Hetty agreed to repay at £60 per month. In her letter of 28 July 1986 she confirmed that she had set up a standing order for that purpose. These monies were used partly to pay off Hetty's debts, and partly to fund the refurbishment.
Hetty married the film director Ken Russell in 1992. Their son Rex was born in 1993. However, by 1996 the marriage had broken down; and they separated and subsequently divorced. Hetty had retained the flat in Fulham and let it out. The rent from the flat covered the cost of its outgoings. She eventually received a settlement of about £235,000 on her divorce; together with periodical payments for the maintenance of Rex at the rate of £500 per month. The settlement was embodied in a court order of 18 April 1997. While the divorce settlement was being negotiated Mary helped Hetty with money. Undated correspondence from about that time makes it clear that Hetty characterised the payments as loans.
In May 1996 Hetty wrote to Mary thanking her for a loan of £10,000 over a period of a year. This loan was recorded in a formal loan agreement drawn up by solicitors. Interest on the loan was payable at the rate of 4.5 per cent per annum. In November Mary received a telephone call from Hetty in which the latter said that she had no money for food; and it was agreed that Mary would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Baynes v Hedger and Others
-
Juliet Antonia Margaret Miles v Pamela Lesley Shearer (as executrix and beneficiary of the estate of Anthony Presley Shearer)
...difficulties were defunct. 106 In her submissions, Miss Rich placed particular emphasis on the decision of Lewison J (as he then was) in Baynes v Hedger [2008] EWHC 1587 (Ch). That was a case of an adult applicant pursuing a claim against the estate of her godmother, so it fell within sect......
-
Lyyc v Chl & Csms, The Executrices Of The Estate Of Cgsk Also Known As Cskg, Deceased
...that this question should be dealt with at trial. 24. Counsel for the Respondent relied on the judgment of Lewison J in Baynes v Hedger [2008] EWHC 1587 at [154]. The proposition seems to be that a contribution is made when the gift was made. In the present context, the Respondent contended......