Key and Another v Key and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE BRIGGS,Mr Justice Briggs |
| Judgment Date | 05 March 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC08C02872 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 05 March 2010 |
In the Estate of George Douglas Key (Deceased)
[2010] EWHC 408 (Ch)
Before: Mr Justice Briggs
Case No: HC08C02872
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Mr Simon Redmayne (instructed by Barry Ferguson, 36 Brian Avenue, Norwich NR1 2PH) for the Claimants
Mr John Ross Martyn (instructed by Cadge &Gilbert, 9 High Street, Loddon NR14 6EU) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 18 th– 22 nd February 2010
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A paragraph 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 Briggs:
INTRODUCTION
George Douglas Key of Hall Farm, Mundham, Norfolk, died on 20 th July 2008, two months short of his 91 st birthday. His wife Esme Sybil Key, known to the family as Sybil, died on Monday 27 th November 2006. They had been married for 65 years. They were survived by four children, Richard, Jane, John and Mary, born respectively in 1943, 1944, 1946 and 1953. Mr Key was a farmer, as his father had been. Both Richard and John had spent the whole of their working lives farming with their father and had, by 2006, taken over the running of the family farm from him, and indeed the ownership of the bulk of the farmland. They each lived within walking distance of their father, in the rural hamlet of Mundham, a few miles southeast of Norwich.
Mr Key's elder daughter Jane was a university tutor living a short drive away at Oulton near Lowestoft. His younger daughter Mary had moved to the United States of America and married a Mr Charles Boykin in 1990, but paid twice yearly visits to England thereafter, for at least part of which she stayed with her mother and father. She returned home and looked after her father for a few days upon learning of her mother's death. Mr and Mrs Key and all their children were and remained in 2006 a close and caring family.
On 4 th December 2006, exactly a week after Sybil's death, Michael Christopher Cadge, a solicitor of Messrs Cadge &Gilbert of Bungay in Suffolk, attended Mr Key at his house, Hall Farm, Mundham at Mary's request, for the purpose of taking instructions upon a new will for Mr Key. Two days later Mr Key was taken by Mary to Cadge &Gilbert's offices in Bungay where, in the presence of Mr Cadge and an office secretary, he duly executed the new will (“the 2006 Will”). It provided for the bulk of his estate to be divided equally between his two daughters, in sharp contrast with his previous will, dated 18 th December 2001 (“the 2001 Will”) by which the bulk of his estate was, subject to life interests in favour of Sybil, to be divided equally between his two sons.
In proceedings issued in October 2008 Richard and John have challenged the 2006 Will on the grounds of want of testamentary capacity and want of knowledge and approval. The claim has been vigorously defended by Jane and Mary. Two of the three executors named in the 2006 Will, namely Jane's husband Victor Frederick Morgan and a Mr James Cocks have been joined as defendants but have, very properly, taken no active part in the proceedings other than (in Mr Morgan's case), to give evidence. Richard was the third named executor.
Most unfortunately, the circumstances of the making of the 2006 Will, and of the manner in which Mr Key's sons, on learning of it, subsequently investigated his testamentary capacity, have transformed the formerly close relationship between his sons and daughters into one of mutual suspicion, recrimination and distrust, to an extent which has rendered this unfortunate family dispute insoluble other than by way of an expensive three day trial, with evidence from no less than twenty witnesses, eighteen of whom were cross-examined. While this judgment will, subject to any appeal, resolve the legal issue as to the validity of the 2006 Will, I entertain no expectation that it will heal the underlying wounds, however much I would have wished otherwise.
The Golden Rule
As will appear, a significant element of responsibility for this tragic state of affairs lies with Mr Cadge. Contrary to the clearest guidance, in well known cases, academic texts and from the Law Society, Mr Cadge accepted instructions for the preparation of the 2006 Will, from an 89 year old testator whose wife of 65 years' standing had been dead for only a week without taking any proper steps to satisfy himself of Mr Key's testamentary capacity, and without even making an attendance note of his meeting with Mr Key and Mary, at which the instructions were taken. Mr Cadge's failure to comply with what has come to be well known in the profession as the Golden Rule has greatly increased the difficulties to which this dispute has given rise and aggravated the depths of mistrust into which his client's children have subsequently fallen.
The substance of the Golden Rule is that when a solicitor is instructed to prepare a will for an aged testator, or for one who has been seriously ill, he should arrange for a medical practitioner first to satisfy himself as to the capacity and understanding of the testator, and to make a contemporaneous record of his examination and findings: see Kenward v. Adams (1975) Times 29 November 1975; Re Simpson (1977) 121 SJ 224, in both cases per Templeman J, and subsequently approved in Buckenhan v. Dickinson [2000] WTLR 1083, Hoff v. Atherton [2005] WTLR 99, Cattermole v. Prisk [2006] 1 FLR 697, and in Scammell v. Farmer [2008] EWHC 1100 (Ch), at paragraphs 117 to 123.
Compliance with the Golden Rule does not, of course, operate as a touchstone of the validity of a will, nor does non-compliance demonstrate its invalidity. Its purpose, as has repeatedly been emphasised, is to assist in the avoidance of disputes, or at least in the minimisation of their scope. As the expert evidence in the present case confirms, persons with failing or impaired mental faculties may, for perfectly understandable reasons, seek to conceal what they regard as their embarrassing shortcomings from persons with whom they deal, so that a friend or professional person such as a solicitor may fail to detect defects in mental capacity which would be or become apparent to a trained and experienced medical examiner, to whom a proper description of the legal test for testamentary capacity had first been provided.
THE EVIDENCE
The issues in this case turn almost entirely on oral evidence. The only significantly relevant documents consist of Mr Key's previous wills, made in 1962, 1967, 1996 and 2001, the 2006 Will itself, together with a manuscript draft of it prepared by Mr Cadge, and a scrappy, undated, but earlier note of his, and notes of home visits made by Mr Key's GP, Dr Alasdair Duthie, including a visit on 1 st December 2006.
Most of the relevant background to the making of the 2006 Will, including the lifetime gifts previously made by Mr Key to his sons, is common ground. I turn therefore to the twenty witnesses, who may be conveniently divided into four categories, namely (1) experts (2) members of Mr Key's family (3) neighbours and (4) Mr Cadge.
The Experts
The claimants called Dr William Hughes FRCPsych. He qualified in Medicine in 1968, and worked as a consultant psychiatrist and psychotherapist within the National Health Service from 1980 until 2000, as well as being, at various times, Clinical Tutor in Psychiatry, Clinical Director and Medical Director, to the Norfolk Mental Healthcare NHS Trust as well as an Honorary Senior Lecturer at the University of East Anglia. He specialised for many years in the field of complex trauma and disassociation, and his career included treating many people suffering from psychosomatic disorders, personality disorders, neurotic and psychotic disorders of the mind.
Dr Hughes had the considerable advantage of having personally carried out a psychiatric examination of Mr Key on 30 th April 2007 at Hall Farm. As will appear, the reliability of that examination may have been a little undermined by its having been conducted by Dr Hughes under the misapprehension that he had been instructed to carry it out by Mr Key's solicitor, and therefore at Mr Key's own request, whereas in fact it had been arranged by Richard with the assistance of a solicitor, a Mr Ferguson, acting for him, rather than for his father.
Dr Hughes had not given expert evidence before. Nonetheless he demonstrated a proper understanding of his duties to the court, and it was not suggested, nor could I detect, that he suffered from any lack of independence or objectivity. I found him to be an articulate, helpful and reliable witness, as his long and distinguished career would have led me to expect.
The defendants called Professor Robin Jacoby FRCPsych, Professor Emeritus of Old Age Psychiatry at the University of Oxford. His medical career began in 1971, and he was a consultant psychiatrist between 1980 and 1993, for most of that time at the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals in London. He was appointed Clinical Reader in Old Age Psychiatry at the University of Oxford in 1994, and Professor of Old Age Psychiatry in 1998.
Unlike Dr Hughes, Professor Jacoby has considerable experience in giving expert evidence, including reports and oral evidence about testamentary capacity. Furthermore, his specialisation has been more focused upon the psychiatric problems of persons of advanced years than that of Dr Hughes. He was therefore a little better qualified both by experience and specialisation than Dr Hughes in giving expert evidence as to Mr Key's testamentary capacity, although he lacked Dr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gorjat v Gorjat
... ... Succession to movable property is governed by the law of the domicile of the deceased which is indisputably England. Whether by one route or another therefore, I am satisfied that this court has jurisdiction in relation to the validity of the transfer by way of gift made by Jean ... As a result of these matters and numerous others, I found her evidence in general to be unreliable and place little if no weight upon it. (ii) Lucrecia, Paula and Tim ... 32 ... ...
-
Sally Ann Bateman v Stephen Leslie Overy and Another
...shifts the evidential burden on to Stephen and Wendy. 136 Mr Brilliant relied upon the summary of the relevant principles by Briggs J in Key v. Key [2010] EWHC 405 (Ch) at para.97 where the Judge said this: "97. The burden of proof in relation to testamentary capacity is subject to the foll......
-
Markou and Another v Goodwin & Others
...capacity. There is no dispute about this. It is set out conveniently in paragraph [97] of the judgment of Briggs J in Re Key Deceased [2010] EWHC 408 Ch as follows: "The burden of proof in relation to testamentary capacity is subject to the following rules: i) While the burden starts with t......
-
Mrs Lynda Turner v Mr Richard Phythian and Another
...expressly tailored to the issue in this case. 40 The burden of proof as regards mental capacity was considered by Briggs J in Key & another v Key and others [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch) where he said: "The burden of proof in relation to testamentary capacity is subject to the following rules: (i) W......
-
Lessons from “Clarity on Capacity”: A UK-law perspective on the unique ethical challenges faced by estate planners representing clients with diminished capacity
...evidence of experts who had not seen the deceased, that the will was invalid, and the Court of Appeal upheld his decision. In Key v Key [2010] 1 WLR 2020 the solicitor who took instructions for the will was strongly criticised for failing to observe the rule. In Wharton v Bancroft [2011] EW......
-
Test For Testamentary Capacity Confirmed Banks v Goodfellow Remains
...be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity" The common law position (as set out in Re Key (deceased) [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch)) "The burden of proof in relation to testamentary capacity is subject to the following rules: (i) While the burden starts with the propo......
-
Power Struggles: Challenges Based On Capacity And Undue Influence
...the same, thus the role of the advisor and Court may be called upon often. Footnotes 1. FSD 121 of 2016. 2. (1869-70) LR 5 QB 549. 3. [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch). 4. [2004] EWCA 5. In re Poulton at 453, referring to Gouldbourne v Gouldbourne, Civil G0207 of 2014 at 114-115. This article was first ......
-
Under The Influence? A Review Of A Recent Cayman Islands Decision That Finds Care For The Entire Beneficial Class Is The Pivotal Factor In Determining Undue Influence
...appeared for the successful second defendant. 4. (1869-70) LR 5 QB 549 5. Zorbas v Sidiropoulos (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 197 6. Key v Key; [2010] 1 WLR 2020 7. Burgess v Hawes [2013] EWCA Civ 94 8. At para.423 9. At para.349 10. [2002] 2 AC 773 11. At para.437 12. [2003] EWCA 1935 13. Hammond v ......
-
Table of Cases
...Ltd (in Receivership), Re Kershaw v Micklethwaite [2010] EWHC 506 (Ch), [2011] WTLR 413 200 Key (Deceased), Re; Key v Key & Others [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch), [2010] 1 WLR 2020, [2010] WTLR 623, [2010] All ER (D) 155 (Apr) 41, 46, 47–48, 53, 56, 72 Killick v Pountney [2000] WTLR 41, [1999] All ER......
-
The Rise of Statutory Wills and the Limits of Best Interests Decision‐Making in Inheritance
...decisions.13 Kenward vAdams (1975) The Times 29 November 1975.14 Hoff vAtherton [2004] EWCA Civ 1554 at [48].15 Key vKey [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch) at [8].16 Craig vLumoureux [1920] AC 349.17 Kerridge (2000), n 9 above.18 Kerridge (2009), n 11 above, 86.The Rise of Statutory Wills© 2015 The Autho......
-
A TALE OF TWO CAPACITIES
...Robin Jacoby, Testamentary Capacity: Law, Practice and Medicine (Oxford University Press, 2015) at para 2.11. See also Re Key; Key v Key [2010] WLR 2020; [2010] WTLR 623 at [98], per Briggs J and Zorbas v Sidiropoulos (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 197. 33 Re Griffith; Easter v Griffith (1995) 217 ALR......
-
Knowledge and Approval
...degree of doubt and suspicion raised, other evidence may be required. (See also Re Key (Deceased); Key and Another v Key and Others [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch); the concept under the rule in Parker v Felgate (1883) 8 PD 171; and the decision-making capacity which forms the basis of the test of ‘ca......