Howell Evans and Others v David Edward Rees Lloyd and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | H.H. Judge Keyser |
| Judgment Date | 24 June 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 1725 (Ch) |
| Date | 24 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | Claim No: 2CF30091 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
[2013] EWHC 1725 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
CARDIFF DISTRICT REGISTRY
Cardiff Civil Justice Centre
2 Park Street
Cardiff
CF10 1ET
His Honour Judge Keyser QC
sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Claim No: 2CF30091
NIGEL THOMAS (instructed by Aaron & Partners LLP) for the Claimants
GERAINT JONES Q.C. and GWYDION HUGHES (instructed by Milwyn Jenkins & Jenkins) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 22, 23 and 24 April 2013
H.H. Judge Keyser Q.C.:
Introduction
Wynne Evans ("Wynne") was a farm worker. His entire working life from the age of fourteen was spent in the service of the proprietors of the farm known as Cefnbarrach, Trefeglwys, Caersws—latterly the defendants, Mr David Lloyd ("David") and his wife Mrs Elizabeth Lloyd, and before that David's parents and grandparents. During the whole of that period and until his death Wynne resided at the farm.
Wynne died on 2 September 2006 at the age of seventy-nine years. Before he died, he had made to Mr and Mrs Lloyd a gift of two agricultural holdings that he had inherited from one of his brothers, David Ieuan Evans ("Ieuan"). Those holdings comprised substantially the whole of Wynne's estate.
There is an issue as to whether Wynne died testate or intestate. The claimants say that he died intestate. However, the defendants say that he died testate and that the will, of which David was the residuary beneficiary, has been lost.
The first claimant, Howell Evans ("Howell"), is Wynne's sole surviving brother. If Wynne died intestate, he is entitled to Wynne's estate. Howell has been resident in nursing homes since 1996. He is old, infirm and unable to manage his own affairs. He executed a two-page witness statement dated 20 July 2011 but appears otherwise to have taken no part in these proceedings, which have been brought and pursued by the second and third claimants.
The second claimant, Mr David Bernard Evans ("Bernard"), is a cousin of Howell's and Wynne's. Since 2012 he and his wife, the third claimant, Mrs Helen Evans, have held a power of attorney for Howell. With that power, on 22 June 2012 they took out letters of administration to Wynne's estate. In addition, they are named as the sole beneficiaries of Howell's latest will, which was made in May 2011.
In these proceedings, the claimants claim rescission of the gifts of the agricultural holdings to Mr and Mrs Lloyd on the ground that either they were unconscionable transactions or they were procured by Mr and Mrs Lloyd's undue influence over Wynne. Mr and Mrs Lloyd deny that there was an unconscionable transaction or that they exercised undue influence over Wynne, and they counterclaim an order that the lost will be admitted to probate.
Throughout this judgment, I shall generally refer to the main characters by their forenames. This is simply for ease of exposition and I trust that it will not be thought discourteous.
Written and oral evidence was received at trial. I have had regard to all of it but shall refer only to some of it. The submissions of Mr Thomas for the claimants and of Mr Jones Q.C. and Mr Hughes for the defendants have been of great assistance.
The facts
Background to the transactions
Howell is one of the four sons of Evan Evans and Annie Evans. Ieuan was the eldest son. Next was Emlyn. Howell and Wynne were twins, born on 25 September 1926. None of the brothers ever married or had children. Mr and Mrs Evans senior died in the mid 1980s. Ieuan died in 1985. Emlyn died in 1994. Wynne died, as I have said, in 2006.
When Wynne was about fourteen years old, in 1940, he left his family home and went to work and reside at Cefnbarrach. At that time the farm was owned and run by David's grandparents. Later it passed to his parents. David was born in 1958. He married the second defendant in 1983 and became a partner in the farming business at Cefnbarrach at around that time. Cefnbarrach is now run in partnership by Mr and Mrs Lloyd and their son, Richard. For the purposes of the narrative that follows it is relevant to record that the Lloyd family and the Evans family knew each other well and that the defendants and David's parents were on close terms with Wynne's brothers, including until recently Howell.
As I have said, Wynne lived with the Lloyd family at the farm until his death. There is a considerable amount of evidence relating to his relationship with the family. I shall summarise my conclusions later in this judgment. Here it suffices to record that Wynne became in effect a member of the Lloyd family and until his death enjoyed the closest and warmest of relationships with them and, in particular, with David.
At some time after Wynne had gone to Cefnbarrach, Mr and Mrs Evans senior and the three other brothers moved to live at a nearby smallholding known as Tanyfron, which comprised a house and outbuildings and about fifteen acres of land. Ieuan, Emlyn and Howell resided at Tanyfron for most of their lives thereafter.
In 1964 Mr Evans senior conveyed Tanyfron to Ieuan by way of gift. Although the conveyance described Ieuan as an agricultural worker, he farmed Tanyfron on a part-time basis and held employment with the local authority as a roadman. However, in 1966 he enlarged the agricultural unit by purchasing about ten acres of land at the nearby holding of Waenhir. After retiring from his employment on grounds of ill health, Ieuan devoted a greater proportion of his time to the smallholding in the last few years of his life. From 1978, he was assisted in this by Wynne and David.
A few weeks before his death, Ieuan made his last will, which was dated 11 July 1985. The will appointed Wynne as the sole executor and trustee and, by clause 2, gave Tanyfron and Waenhir to Wynne absolutely, subject to the proviso that he should not sell the house at Tanyfron until after the death of Howell and Emlyn, who were to have to right to live there for as long as they should desire. The residue of the estate was divided equally among Wynne, Howell and Emlyn. In October 1985 Wynne took a grant of probate of the will, and Tanyfron and Waenhir were vested in him by assents dated 15 November 1985.
At that time, Bernard and his wife were the landlords of the Red Lion public house in Trefeglwys; they were there from 1980 until 1987. Both Wynne and Howell drank at the Red Lion. Wynne would drink there on a Sunday afternoon and frequently on a Saturday also. Before becoming landlord of the public house, Bernard, who was born in 1944, did not know Wynne very well, because his childhood visits to his cousins at Tanyfron took place after Wynne had already gone to Cefnbarrach. Although he got to know Wynne better through the Red Lion, he acknowledged in evidence that Wynne generally kept himself to himself at the Red Lion and that he treated Wynne like any other customer.
Bernard's relationship with Howell was closer, both because of the family visits when he was a child and because Howell was a more regular visitor to the Red Lion and appears to have been more gregarious than Wynne, at least when in drink.
According to Bernard, Howell was very upset when he learned that Ieuan had left Tanyfron and Waenhir to Wynne, with nothing more than a right of residence to him and Emlyn. He came into the Red Lion one day with a copy of Ieuan's will and complained of the injustice of its provisions. It seems likely that any upset on Howell's part was short-lived in the immediate aftermath of Ieuan's death and was exacerbated by drink and by the emotions attendant on the bereavement. The probable reason for the bequest to Wynne was that, of the surviving brothers, Wynne alone was a farmer. Ieuan was naturally concerned that Tanyfron should be available as a home to Howell and Emlyn, should they want it, but it is understandable that he should not have wanted to leave the smallholding to either of them, when they were not farmers and were unlikely to be able to look after the land. David gave evidence that, when he and Wynne were keeping Tanyfron well maintained in the years that followed, it was clear that Howell was very happy with an arrangement that permitted him to remain at his home and meant that the land would be looked after.
Bernard also gave evidence concerning a conversation he had with Wynne in 1985. He said that, shortly after Ieuan's death, he drove Wynne to an appointment with a solicitor, Mr Gareth Morgan of Milwyn Jenkins & Jenkins, concerning Ieuan's will. The solicitor suggested to Wynne that he might wish to make a will of his own, so Bernard left the room while that matter was discussed. In the course of the return journey, Wynne told him that he was leaving Tanyfron by his will to Bernard's son, Richard, because he bore the same name as Wynne's grandfather who himself had once owned Tanyfron. Thereafter (said Bernard) he expected that Tanyfron would be left to Richard. Only in 2005, when he learned that Tanyfron was on the market for sale, did he have cause to doubt the assurance he had been given in 1985, and only after Wynne's death did he know that his hopes were to be disappointed.
I reject Bernard's evidence about this conversation, primarily because I am satisfied that Wynne never had the least intention of leaving Tanyfron to Bernard or to his son. First, the suggested motive for the assurance is weak; although people do sometimes act from weak motives. Second, the relationship between Wynne and Bernard was not sufficiently close to make such a gift likely. Third, David's evidence, which I accept, was that Wynne told him that he did not like Bernard, though he did not tell him why and said nothing about Richard. Fourth, it is probable that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doreen Richards v Ronald Simpson
...advice of the Justice of Peace to that of an attorney-at-law. He referred to paragraph 46 of Howell Evans et al v David Lloyd et al [2013] EWHC 1725 (Ch), where the court highlighted that to prove that a gift resulted from the free exercise of an independent will, the most obvious way is af......
-
THE UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAINS DOCTRINE IN ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA: COUSINS OR SIBLINGS?
...which cite the Australian case Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 ('Amadio'). See also Evans v Lloyd [2013] EWHC 1725 (Ch), [52] (Keyser J) ('Evans'), which cites the Australian case Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621 (3) See, eg, Andrew Boon Leong Phang, 'Undue In......