Leigh Helen Cowderoy v Lionel Steve Cranfield
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Morgan |
| Judgment Date | 24 June 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 1616 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 24 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC10C01440 |
[2011] EWHC 1616 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Morgan
Case No: HC10C01440
Mr Alex Troup (instructed by Stones) for the Claimant
Mr Michael Waterworth (instructed by Sparling Benham & Brough) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 16 th, 17 th, 18 th, 19 th, 20 th, 23 rd and 24 th May 2011
Introduction
This case concerns a disputed will made on 13 th November 2006 by a Mrs Helen Imrie Blofield. Mrs Blofield died on the 19 th October 2008. By the disputed will, if valid, and in the events which have happened, Mrs Blofield appointed Mr Lionel Cranfield as her sole executor and left her entire estate to Mr Cranfield. Probate of the disputed will was granted to Mr Cranfield on 7 th May 2009. These proceedings are brought by Mrs Leigh Cowderoy, the granddaughter of Mrs Blofield. Mrs Cowderoy seeks revocation of the grant of probate and asks the court to pronounce against the force and validity of the disputed will. If the disputed will is held to be invalid, the result will be that Mrs Blofield will have died intestate and, in those circumstances, Mrs Cowderoy seeks a grant of letters of administration of the estate of Mrs Blofield. On an intestacy, Mrs Cowderoy would inherit all of Mrs Blofield's estate.
Mrs Cowderoy puts her case on three grounds. First, she contends that Mrs Blofield did not have testamentary capacity to make the disputed will on the 13 th November 2006. Secondly, it is said that Mrs Blofield did not know and approve the contents of the disputed will. Thirdly, it is contended that the disputed will was procured by the undue influence of Mr Cranfield.
Mr Troup appeared on behalf of Mrs Cowderoy and Mr Waterworth appeared on behalf of Mr Cranfield.
My assessment of the witnesses
This case requires me to apply established principles to the particular facts. To a significant extent, the evidence of fact consists of oral evidence. I therefore have to assess the reliability of the oral evidence which I have heard before I can make the necessary findings of fact.
Mrs Cowderoy gave evidence and called as witnesses of fact Mrs Lawrence, Mrs Paleschi, Mrs Rainford, Mrs Garnham, Mrs Buckland, Mr Miller, Mrs Harper and Miss Beefnah. I also received certain statements which were admitted under the Civil Evidence Act 1995. Mrs Cowderoy also called a psychiatrist, a Dr Cooling, as an expert witness.
Mr Cranfield gave evidence and called as witnesses of fact Mr Jones, Mrs Pearce, Mrs Cranfield, Ms Harris, Ms Hallpike and Dr Cheung. Mr Cranfield also called a psychiatrist, a Dr Campbell, as an expert witness.
As it happened, the direct evidence of fact called by Mrs Cowderoy did not deal in much detail with Mrs Blofield's condition around the time of execution of the disputed will. Instead, that evidence dealt with some incidents which were relied upon as throwing light on Mrs Blofield's condition. Conversely, Mr Cranfield himself gave evidence as to Mrs Blofield's condition before, at and after the time of execution of the disputed will. He was also able to call direct evidence on the same subject.
I will begin by recording my assessment of the evidence given by Mrs Cowderoy. In due course, I will refer to specific parts of her evidence and indicate the extent to which I accept that evidence. My overall assessment is that her hostility to Mr Cranfield, her readiness to think the worst of him at all times and her obvious interest in the outcome of the case led her to be over ready to misdescribe matters. I am therefore cautious about those parts of her evidence which are controversial.
Mrs Cowderoy's half sister, Sara Paleschi, wholeheartedly took sides with Mrs Cowderoy in this dispute. That badly affected her ability to form a judgment on certain matters. There are a number of respects, to which I will later refer, in which I am simply unable to accept her evidence.
Mrs Cowderoy's mother, Sherra Lawrence, gave evidence not all of which was consistent. I think that she was genuinely trying to recall what had happened but I do not accept that she had always managed to recall matters accurately.
Mrs Amanda Rainford was the legal executive who acted for Mrs Cowderoy in relation to her father's estate in late 2006. Her witness statement was drafted in a somewhat partisan way although her oral evidence was more balanced. There were certain perceptions or assessments which Mrs Rainford formed which I am cautious about in the light of all of the evidence.
Mrs Harper, a legal executive from Birkett Long, who saw Mrs Blofield on 20 th October 2006, was a straightforward and reliable witness. I also received a witness statement from Mrs Bruce (nee Carpenter), who was then a trainee solicitor who accompanied Mrs Harper; she was not required to attend for cross-examination.
Mrs Garnham lived next door to Mrs Blofield from May 2006 but never met her personally. Insofar as Mrs Garnham's evidence related to matters of fact, it was reliable.
Mrs Victoria Buckland and Mr Nick Miller were two social workers who had seen Mrs Blofield in 2008. Mrs Buckland's evidence was straightforward and reliable. Mr Miller's witness statement showed considerable suspicion of Mr Cranfield but when he gave his oral evidence, he was not able to identify any matters himself which formed a proper basis for suspecting Mr Cranfield's motives.
Miss Beefnah was the manager of the care home to which Mrs Blofield was admitted in 2008. Much of what Miss Beefnah said was not controversial. There were matters, such as the frequency of Mr Cranfield's visits to Mrs Blofield in the care home, on which Miss Beefnah could not really comment. However, she wanted to give an impression on that matter which was unfavourable to Mr Cranfield. I find that Miss Beefnah has taken sides in this dispute in a way which means I have to be cautious about her perception of events.
In view of the allegations in this case, it is very important to consider Mr Cranfield's evidence with particular care. Mrs Blofield's position and state of health could have provided Mr Cranfield with an opportunity to persuade her to make a will in his favour. Further, it could be said that Mr Cranfield had a motive to persuade her in that way. However, the fact that Mr Cranfield had the opportunity and the motive to attempt to persuade Mrs Blofield to favour him does not necessarily mean that he made any such attempt or did anything for which he could be criticised. Although Mr Cranfield was able to give me a great deal of detailed evidence about Mrs Blofield's condition at various times, I have to remember, when considering that evidence, that Mr Cranfield is a very interested party in this case. Having taken particular care to assess his evidence fairly, I found that I could have confidence in the evidence he gave. The temptation for him would have been to emphasise and overstate what he had done for Mrs Blofield. In fact, there was no sign that he yielded to that temptation. If anything, he did not try to emphasise that matter but yet examples of the help he had given to Mrs Blofield tended to emerge from other matters which were explored in the evidence. Generally speaking, his evidence appeared to fit well with the objective evidence and was strongly supported by other witnesses whom I consider to be reliable witnesses. I find that I can accept the substance of Mr Cranfield's evidence.
I also accept Mr Jones' evidence. The greater part of his evidence took the form of speaking to the attendance notes he had made of the visits to Mrs Blofield. Mr Jones added one or two matters of detail which did not appear in the attendance notes. I fully recognise, as submitted by counsel for Mrs Cowderoy, that Mr Jones may have felt tempted to add some colour in relation to matters of detail but I feel that he did not yield to that temptation. Mrs Pearce, the legal secretary who accompanied Mr Jones when the will was executed gave reliable evidence, although limited in its nature.
I also regard the evidence of Mrs Cranfield, Ms Harris and Ms Hallpike as reliable. All three of these witnesses did see Mrs Blofield at around the relevant time and Ms Harris in particular saw Mrs Blofield frequently. I do not think that Mrs Cranfield or Ms Harris have any interest in giving untruthful evidence and although Ms Hallpike isthe current partner of Mr Cranfield, I do not think that she altered her evidence for the purpose of assisting him.
Dr Cheung, Mrs Blofield's GP, gave reliable evidence.
I will refer later and separately to the evidence given by the two consultant psychiatrists.
The facts
I will now set out my findings of fact in detail and in date order. At the end of the chronological sequence, I will make further findings on other relevant matters of fact.
There is some uncertainty as to the date of birth of Mrs Blofield. Some of the documents give her date of birth as 26 th January 1923 whilst others give the date as 26 th January 1924. Accordingly, when Mrs Blofield made the disputed will on the 13 th of November 2006 she was well on in her 83 rd or 84 th year and when she died on the 19 th October 2008 she was well on in her 85 th or 86 th year. Mrs Blofield was herself an only child. There is reference in the documents to Mrs Blofield serving in the Royal Air Force and subsequently she worked for many years as a doctor's receptionist. She married Douglas Blofield, who appears to have been in the merchant navy. Mrs Blofield appears to have lived and worked in Colchester for many years and at all times relevant to this case she lived in a house at 88 Butt Road Colchester. That house had been acquired in the joint names of Mr and Mrs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robert Michael Ashkettle and Another v Rosalind Patricia Ann Gwinnett
...v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 and the more recent glosses on its application in cases such as Key v Key [2010] 1 WLR 2020 and Cowderoy v Cranfield [2011] EWHC 1616. In the latter case, Morgan J (at paras 130–137) summarised the relevant authorities in terms which I would gratefully adop......
-
Steven Anthony Burns and and Another v Colin Leslie Burns
...this area of the law. He set out the basic "make up" of testamentary capacity, derived from Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 and Cowderoy v Cranfield [2011] WTLR 1699. He quoted the principles in these terms: "33. … the testator must: a) Understand that he is giving his property to one......
-
Maureen Wharton v (1) Timothy John Bancroft (2) Jameswilliam Douglas Bancroft and Others
...wishes. The relevant principles have recently been summarised by Lewison J in Edwards v Edwards [2007] WTLR 1387 and by Morgan J in Cowderoy v Cranfield [2011] EWHC 1616, and it may be taken that I have their summaries well in mind. In the instant case I have had particular regard to the fo......
-
Henry Dominic Chicheley Thornton and Others v Mary Virginia Chicheley Woodhouse and Another
...estate as he wishes. The question, in the end, is whether in making his dispositions, the testator has acted as a free agent." 282 In Cowderoy v Cranfield [2011] WTLR 1699, Morgan J set out this summary at [140] and then added at [141]: "Lewison J did not refer to the authorities which supp......
-
Table of Cases
...ER (D) 264 (Oct) 44 Cowan v Foreman [2019] EWCA Civ 1336, [2020] Fam 129, [2020] 2 WLR 61, [2019] WTLR 707 188 Cowderoy v Cranfield [2011] EWHC 1616 (Ch), [2011] WTLR 1699, [2011] All ER (D) 191 (Jun) 47 Craig v Lamoureux [1920] AC 349, 89 LJPC 22, 122 LT 208, PC 77, 85 Craven’s Estate, Re;......
-
Testamentary Capacity
...spent about 12 minutes in procuring the execution of the will. The effect of the Golden Rule was considered in Cowderoy v Cranfield [2011] EWHC 1616 (Ch), where capacity was upheld. The case concerned an elderly woman who left the property in which she lived to her neighbour, the defendant,......