Joan Thompson v Mathew Charles Elverson Ragget
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Jarman |
| Judgment Date | 29 March 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 688 (Ch) |
| Date | 29 March 2018 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: D30CF067 |
[2018] EWHC 688 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
In the estate of Wynford Hodge
And in the matter of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975
Cardiff Civil and Family Justice Centre
2 Park Street, Cardiff CF10 1ET
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Jarman QC
Case No: D30CF067
Mr Alex Troup (instructed by Hugh James) for the claimant
Mr Malcom Warner (instructed by JNP Legal) for the fourth and fifth defendants
The first second and third defendants with permission did not appear
Hearing dates: 21 March 2018
Judgment Approved
HH Judge Jarman QC:
The claimant Joan Thompson claims reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 out of the estate of her late partner, Wynford Hodge, who died on 4 February 2017 in his 90s. His last will, of many, was dated 19 December 2016 (the last will). Thereunder, he appointed as his executors the directors in the firm of solicitors who drew up the will, who are the first to third defendants and who have remained neutral in these proceedings. He gave his substantial estate after payment of expenses and debts to the fourth and fifth defendants, Karla Evans and Agon Berisha. They were tenants of one of his properties known as Penffordd, Narbeth, Pembrokeshire, which they had occupied since early 2015.
The last will made no provision for Mrs Thompson. He gave his reasons in a letter of wishes dated the same day, as follows:
“In my Will I have specifically made no provision for my partner, Joan Thompson and her children, Gary, Lee, Dean and Sharon. I currently have no contact with Joan's children. I have no issue with Gary, but I have concerns regarding Lee, Dean and Sharon and do not trust them. I feel that they have previously taken advantage of me and have already received/taken monies from me during my lifetime. I do not want Joan or her children to inherit from my estate.”
He then went on to give some instances to justify that mistrust before continuing:
“I no longer want to leave my residuary estate on trust to pay the income to Joan for her life as this would be a substantial sum and I do not believe she will need it. Also due to Joan's health I believe she would not be able to live in my property independently. I am Joan's main carer and envisage she may have to go in to a home following my death. I confirm Joan has her own finances and is financially comfortable. Joan has her own money and her own savings.”
The net estate was valued for probate purposes as £1,535,060. Valuations were obtained of various properties in the estate. These valued Penffordd at £343,000, Parsonage Farm and Caravan Park, also at Amroth, at £545,000, an adjoining bungalow called Parsonage Bungalow at £157,000, an adjoining cottage called Elidyr Cottage at £225,000, and a small parcel of land at £5,000. Farm machinery and vehicles were valued at £62,625. The latest estate accounts show that there is a balance of liquid assets for distribution in the amount of £168,000.
There is little if any factual dispute in these proceedings. Mr Hodge and Ms Thompson had lived together as man and wife for some 42 years prior to his death. She was financially dependent upon him throughout that time and at his death. Accordingly, she is entitled as a cohabitee under section 1(1) (ba) or a dependent (e) of the 1975 to claim that the last will did not make reasonable financial provision for her. In either case, that means under section 1(2) such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all circumstances of the case for her to receive for her maintenance.
In the mid-1970s Ms Thompson and her son Dean, then a young boy, moved into a caravan at Parsonage Farm, and then shortly afterwards into the farmhouse with Mr Hodge and his mother. She worked on the farm and in the caravan site business without pay. She helped care for his mother, then in her eighties, for some two or three years before Mrs Hodge passed away.
As Mr Hodge and Mrs Thompson grew older each had health issues which needed care and each relied on the other to provide care. Mrs Thompson had a serious stroke about 12 years ago and has had heart attacks since. She accepts that in the last few years that she needed more care than he did. However, she helped him whenever she could, for example by helping him dress, wash and shave after a hip replacement some years ago. In about 2015 she had a serious fall and after discharge from hospital social services were concerned that the conditions in the farmhouse were not appropriate for her to live in, and so she went to live in a local nursing home. However, Mr Hodge wanted her home and so the couple moved into a caravan near to the farmhouse.
In 2016, Mr Hodge bought Elidyr Cottage with a view to moving into it with Mrs Thompson. Towards the end of that year however, Mr Hodge who had a long-standing diagnosis of prostate cancer, had increasing bouts of bladder problems and urinary infections. In December that year he was admitted to hospital. During Mrs Thompson's visits he told her not to worry as she would be well looked after. It was not long after discharge that he was admitted again for a burst cyst which led to his death.
Since then Mrs Thompson has returned to live at the nursing home. She has modest savings, which now amount to some £2,500. Her only income consists of a state benefit and disability living allowance totalling £1,114 per month.
The most up to date medical evidence of Mrs Thompson's health comes from a letter from her GP dated 12 June 2017 to her solicitors which says:
“I saw Joan and her daughter in law this afternoon to discuss the matter of her intention to reside outside of Park House Court Nursing Home. As a result of these discussions I am able to inform you that this lady retains sufficient medical health not to require the facilities of a nursing home. She is certainly fit enough to reside in private accommodation with a relevant social care package. Furthermore, she retains the capacity to make this decision. I would also add that it is in her best interests that she does retain as much independence as possible because being accommodated in the long term in an institution such as a nursing home is liable to ‘make her institutionalised’.”
Expert evidence was obtained as to what is an appropriate care package from Susan Rees who is an occupational therapist with degrees in psychology and care of children with brain injuries. She has worked with children and adults in community teams and hospitals. She interviewed Mrs Thompson on 10 October 2017 and had access to her medical and social services records until May 2017.
She recorded that Mrs Thompson clearly stated that she no longer wished to reside in the nursing home and wished to live in Parsonage Bungalow or Elidyr Cottage and for her son Dean and his wife and children to move in with her. Ms Rees observed her standing and sitting, walking and getting in and out of bed. She visited the bungalow and the cottage. Ms Rees assessed her care needs on that basis that she would live in either of these properties with adaptations, with care from Dean and his wife and/or professional carers.
In replies to questions put to her on behalf of Ms Evans and Mr Berisha as to whether Mrs Thompson would be cared for by Dean and his wife (with whom she had only recently been reconciled) Ms Rees said this:
“I accept the fact that Mrs Thompson has only recently been reconciled with her son and daughter in law. However, during the assessment they and Mrs Thompson clearly stated that they wished to live together and care for Mrs Thompson. I believe that Janet Thompson has demonstrated that she is committed to the care of her mother in law. She visits once a week when she takes Mrs Thompson to the daycentre and to have her hair and nails done. She does Mrs Thompson's washing. She also accompanies her husband once a week to take Mrs Thompson out for a meal or to go shopping. Mr Thompson (son) informed me that he visits his mother daily after work and the staff at the home confirmed that he visits on a regular basis.
With regard to the experience required to care for Mrs Thompson, Mrs Janet Thompson informed me that she had worked in a care home for the elderly for 2 years, in a care home for physically and cognitively disabled young adults for 4 years, and had cared for both her father and stepfather as they become terminally ill. In addition, it is envisaged that the care that Janet Thompson would provide would be of a mainly domestic or supervisory nature i.e provision of all meals cleaning, laundry, or shopping. It was the opinion of the author that Mrs Janet Thompson would be able to provide supervision and care to Mrs Thompson.”
Only Mrs Thompson gave oral evidence in support of her case. She did so from a wheel chair. I was told she was suffering from bronchitis. She told me that she had been driven up from Pembrokeshire to Cardiff that morning by her son and daughter in law. The three of them were in court until the end of submissions at just after 3pm. With a couple of breaks she was cross examined for about one and a half hours. Although understandably she was confused about some dates she answered questions appropriately and readily made concessions.
In final submissions, Mr Warner for Ms Evans and Mr Berisha, conceded that the last will did not make reasonable provision for Mrs Thompson, but then qualified that by two preconditions which he said needed to be satisfied: that the GP's letter is an accurate summary of Mrs Thompson's present condition, and that her son Dean and his wife would look after her as envisaged by Ms Rees.
Insofar as it...
To continue reading
Request your trial