Louise Michelle Reeves v Clayton Peter Drew
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Michael Green |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 159 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: PT-2019-000803 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
[2022] EWHC 159 (Ch)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Michael Green
Case No: PT-2019-000803
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
PROPERTY TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD)
IN THE ESTATE OF KEVIN PATRICK FRAIN (AKA KEVIN PATRICK REEVES)
Royal Courts of Justice
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Thomas Dumont QC and Paul Burton (instructed by Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP) for the Claimant
Giles Richardson (instructed by Stevens & Bolton LLP) for the First Defendant
Constance McDonnell QC, Maurice Holmes and Hamish Fraser (instructed by London Litigation Partnership) for the Second Defendant
Clifford Darton QC and Maurice Holmes (instructed by London Litigation Partnership) for the Fourth Defendant
The Third and Fifth Defendants were present but unrepresented
Hearing dates: 9–12, 15–19 and 22–26 November 2021
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.
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Michael Green
| CONTENTS | Paragraph | |
| A | INTRODUCTION | Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found.[1] |
| B | THE ISSUES | Error! Reference source not found.[12] |
| C | THE DECEASED | [18] |
| D | THE WITNESSES | [33] |
| (1) The Parties | [35] | |
| (2) The Solicitors | [68] | |
| (3) The Claimant's main witnesses | [86] | |
| (4) The Defendants' main witnesses | [100] | |
| (5) The remaining witnesses | [117] | |
| E | DETAILED FACTUAL NARRATIVE | [123] |
| The early 2000s | [124] | |
| The 2005 will | [131] | |
| The reconciliation | [135] | |
| The 2012 will | [143] | |
| Period between 2012 will and 25 July 2013 meeting | [156] | |
| 25 July meeting | [169] | |
| Land near Rossiters Copse | [184] | |
| Arranging the 11 December 2013 meeting | [188] | |
| The 11 December 2013 meeting | [206] | |
| Communications prior to 23 December 2013 meeting | [227] | |
| The 23 December 2013 meeting | [244] | |
| Execution of the 2014 will on 7 January 2014 | [260] | |
| Events immediately after execution of the 2014 will | [292] | |
| Purchase of 64 Belmont Road | [298] | |
| Mr Lines' email of 27 November 2015 | [304] | |
| Other relevant events post-2014 will | [312] | |
| Post-death events | [324] | |
| F | KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL | |
| (1) Legal Principles | [336] | |
| (2) The deceased's literacy | [350] | |
| (3) Dramatic change to testamentary intention | [367] | |
| (4) The 80/20 split | [380] | |
| (5) The will-making process | [386] | |
| (6) Conclusion on knowledge and approval | [403] | |
| G | UNDUE INFLUENCE | |
| (1) Introduction | [414] | |
| (2) The legal test for undue influence | [418] | |
| (3) The circumstantial evidence relied upon | [424] | |
| (4) The Claimant's character | [429] | |
| (5) Conclusion on undue influence | [436] | |
| H | CONCLUSION AND DISPOSITION | [446] |
A. INTRODUCTION
Kevin Patrick Reeves (aka Kevin Patrick Frain) (the deceased or Kevin) was an extraordinary man who during his life built a fortune of up to £100 million from nothing. He died, unexpectedly, on 3 February 2019 at the age of 71 although he had been unwell for many years with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, or emphysema. His death has unleashed a bitter feud between his children and grandchildren that culminated in a three week trial during which I heard from 49 witnesses about whether a will made by the deceased on 7 January 2014 (the 2014 will) was his valid last will and testament.
The Claimant, Ms Louise Reeves (the Claimant or Louise) 1 is the youngest daughter of the deceased. She seeks to uphold the 2014 will and asks the Court to pronounce in favour of it in solemn form of law. Under the 2014 will, the Claimant received a specific property and the deceased's Rolls Royce Phantom but most significantly she was left 80% of the deceased's residuary estate. Her half-sister, Lisa Murray, the Third Defendant ( Lisa) was left the remaining 20% of the residuary estate, together with a specific property. Lisa supports the Claimant in these proceedings and gave evidence for her.
On the other side and opposing probate being granted of the 2014 will is the Second Defendant, Simon Frain (aka Simon Reeves, aka Bill Reeves) ( Bill) who is the second son of the deceased. He says that the deceased did not know and approve the contents of the 2014 will; alternatively that it was procured and executed by the deceased as a result of undue influence exercised by the Claimant on him. Bill seeks to propound an earlier will made on 18 April 2012 (the 2012 will) by which the deceased's residuary estate was split as to 80% between the Claimant, Lisa and Bill (ie 26.67% to each child) and the remaining 20% was split equally between the Fourth and Fifth Defendants ( Ryan and Ria, respectively). Ryan and Ria are both grandchildren of the deceased as their father is Mark Reeves ( Mark), the eldest son of the deceased. Mark was estranged from the deceased and did not feature in any will of the deceased. Ryan is separately represented in these proceedings but wholeheartedly supports Bill's case. Ria is unrepresented but she gave evidence on behalf of Bill and Ryan 2. Mark, their father, gave evidence against them in support of the Claimant. One can see already the complicated relationships within this family.
It is accepted by all parties that there was a dramatic change between the 2012 will and the 2014 will, such that the deceased's son, Bill, and the deceased's grandchildren, Ryan and Ria, were almost completely left out of the 2014 will (Bill was only entitled to a third of the deceased's chattels) and the question is whether the deceased truly intended to do that.
It is trite that in this country testators have complete testamentary freedom and they can do as they please. They can act out of pure spite, irrationally, nastily and capriciously,
What is open to scrutiny however is whether the testator was able to exercise his own free will in making his will and whether the will truly reflects his testamentary wishes. This case is complicated by the allegation made by the Defendants that the deceased was illiterate. A lot of evidence on both sides was directed at this issue, which indicates its perceived importance. It is quite remarkable that there could be such a disparity between both sides' evidence: the Claimant's witnesses all saying that the deceased could read perfectly well, although admitting that he could barely write; whereas Bill's witnesses were saying that it was obvious and well known that the deceased could not read. I will have to decide whether this is correct and its impact on whether the deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2014 will.
I should mention at this stage the First Defendant, Clayton Drew ( Mr Drew). He was the deceased's right-hand man for some 30 years, sharing a cramped office with him and having an in-depth knowledge of the deceased's business affairs. He qualified as a Chartered Accountant and is a fellow of the ICAEW. He was appointed as an executor in the 2014 will together with the Claimant. He was also an executor of the 2012 will. Against the opposition of the Defendants, Mr Drew was appointed by the court as the administrator pending suit of the estate for the purpose of gathering in and securing the estate's assets. He has offered to act as such without charge. He was separately represented before me and maintained that he has adopted a neutral position in these proceedings. That is challenged by the Defendants who said that he has aligned himself with the Claimant. He gave evidence and was cross-examined by all parties. In particular, he said that the deceased could read, including complicated legal documents.
Much of the evidence that was adduced by both sides was of peripheral if any relevance. This was largely directed at the case of undue influence and raised a number of side issues. I will not be able to deal with each of such issues and I do not think it is necessary to do so. These indicate, at best, the true personalities of the main parties and the deceased and the relationships between them and I have taken all such incidences into account in assessing the credibility of the evidence that has been given, even if I do not expressly refer to the particular incident in question.
I pay tribute to Counsel and their legal teams in ensuring that they stuck to their timetable, which was no mean feat given the number of witnesses involved and the loss of one afternoon due to a witness contracting Covid just before giving evidence. Thomas Dumont QC leading Paul Burton appeared on behalf of the Claimant; Constance McDonnell QC leading Maurice Holmes and Hamish Fraser appeared on behalf of Bill; and Clifford Darton QC leading Maurice Holmes appeared on behalf of Ryan. The Defendants had the same solicitors. Giles Richardson made a limited appearance on behalf of Mr Drew when he was giving evidence and put in short written submissions. Lisa and Ria were unrepresented.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simon Kevin Frain (Aka Simon Kevin Reeves, Aka Bill Reeves) v Louise Michelle Reeves
...the Proceedings. 4 Judgment was given in the Proceedings by Michael Green J (“ the Judge”) on 31 January 2022 ( Reeves v Drew & Ors [2022] EWHC 159 (Ch)) (“ the Judgment”), dismissing the claim of undue influence but holding that Louise had not proved on the balance of probabilities that t......
-
Gorringe v Pointon
...There can be problems evidentially with running undue influence as an alternative to want of knowledge and approval. See Reeves v Drew [2022] EWHC 159 (Ch) at McFadden who certifies (twice) that the document was signed by the donor in her presence. A line is hand drawn across the face of th......