Monica Margaret Ramji v Graham John Harvey (in his capacity as Executor of the estate of Sugrim Orlando Ramji Deceased)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Monty |
| Judgment Date | 06 July 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 1664 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Claim No PT-2021-000841 |
[2023] EWHC 1664 (Ch)
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Monty KC
Sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Claim No PT-2021-000841
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS
PROPERTY TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD)
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1NL
Mr Otchie (instructed by Mould Haruna) for the Claimant and the Ninth Defendant
Ms Challenger (instructed by IDR Law) for the Second, Third and Eighth Defendants
Ms Lynn-Marie Neale, the Fourth Defendant, in person
Hearing dates: 15 – 19 May 2023
Approved Judgment
HHJ Monty KC:
Introduction
This is my judgment following the trial of two preliminary issues in relation to a claim made under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
The 1975 Act claim is brought by Mrs Monica Ramji, also known as Nicky, whose husband, Mr Sugrim Ramji, died on 17 January 2021.
Mr Ramji's last Will was executed on 15 May 2019. Mr Harvey, who is a solicitor, was appointed by the Will as executor of his estate. Mr Harvey had acted for Mr Ramji in the preparation and execution of the Will, and in his capacity as executor he is the First Defendant.
Mr and Mrs Ramji had married on 14 December 1978. It was a second marriage for them both. Each had children (and grandchildren) from their previous marriages. I will refer to them in the main in this judgment by their first names, as they were referred to at the trial, without any discourtesy intended.
Mr Ramji had six children, Michael, Chandra, William, Devika, Lawrence and Lynn-Marie. Devika is the Second Defendant, Chandra is the Third Defendant, Lynn-Marie is the Fourth Defendant and William is the Tenth Defendant.
Joanne, Katie, Daniel and Christopher are William's children, and are therefore grandchildren of Mr Ramji. They are the Fifth to Eighth Defendants respectively.
Mrs Ramji had three children, and Lauren, one of her grandchildren, is the Ninth Defendant. Lauren's mother Nicola and Lauren's sister Kerry also feature in the narrative.
When he died, Mr Ramji had interests in three South London properties.
▪ 4 Montacute Road – Mr and Mrs Ramji were the owners in law and in equity and each had a 50% interest. There is no dispute about the legal and beneficial ownership of 4 Montacute Road, which I shall refer to as “4 MR”.
▪ 2 Montacute Road – this was registered in Mr Ramji's sole name. I will refer to this property as “2 MR”.
▪ 51 Ravensbourne Park Crescent – this was registered in the names of Mr Ramji, Mrs Ramji and Lauren. I will refer to this property as “51 RPC”.
The preliminary issues
The preliminary issues are in respect of 2 MR and 51 RPC and are formulated (pursuant to the order of Deputy Master Nurse dated 25 April 2022) as follows:
“There be tried and determined as a preliminary issue (‘the Preliminary Issues’) the extent and nature of beneficial interests of the Claimant and the deceased at the date of the deceased's death in the properties known as;
(a) No.2 Montacute Road, London, SE6 4XL, and
(b) No.51 Ravensbourne Park Crescent, London, SE6 4Y[G].”
As to 2 MR, Mrs Ramji claims that she has a 50% beneficial interest. That claim is said to based upon the fact of her marriage to Mr Ramji, and upon a constructive trust.
As to 51 RPC, this was originally registered in the names of Mr and Mrs Ramji. By a transfer dated 26 September 2016, 51 RPC was transferred for nil consideration to Mr Ramji, Mrs Ramji and Lauren as joint tenants (there was an express declaration of trust in Box 10 of the TR1 transfer form). In circumstances which I shall come to later in this judgment, the joint tenancy was severed in 2019. Devika, Chandra and Christopher seek to set aside the transfer. They say that the signature on the TR1 which purports to be that of Mr Ramji is in fact not his signature. They also assert undue influence and want of knowledge and approval.
Representation
The only active parties in the trial of the preliminary issues were the Claimant, Mrs Ramji, and the Ninth Defendant, Lauren, both represented by Mr Otchie, and the Second, Third and Eighth Defendants Devika, Chandra and Christopher, represented by Ms Challenger. Mrs Neale, the Fourth Defendant, is a litigant in person and she was present in court but played little part in proceedings. She asked some brief questions of Mrs Ramji, but these were designed to counter some of the assertions about family relationships Mrs Ramji had made in her statements, none of which are directly relevant to the issues I have to decide. Mr Harvey, the First Defendant, took no part in the trial save as a witness.
The approach to the evidence
Mr Otchie in his closing submissions described this as a very unfortunate intense case where emotions were running high, and where the facts were unique and the authorities of limited assistance.
I think it might be helpful if I set out here some of the helpful observations about how judges decide cases made in James v Scudamore [2023] EWHC 996 (Ch), by HHJ Matthews sitting as a Judge of the High Court, at [11–18]. That was a probate case, but the observations apply equally here.
“ How judges decide cases
11. For the benefit of the lay parties in this case I will say something about how English judges decide civil cases like this one. I borrow the following words largely from other judgments of mine in which I have made similar comments. First of all, judges do not possess supernatural powers that enable them to divine when someone is mistaken, or not telling the truth. Instead, they take note of the witnesses giving live evidence before them, look carefully at all the material presented (witness statements and all the other documents), listen to the arguments made to them, and then make up their minds. But there are a number of important procedural rules which govern their decision-making, some of which I shall briefly mention here, because non-lawyer readers of this judgment may not be aware of them.
Burden of proof
12. The first is the question of the burden of proof. Where there is an issue in dispute between the parties in a civil case (like this one), one party or the other will bear the burden of proving it. In general, the person who asserts something bears the burden of proving it. But in a probate case the person propounding the will or codicil in contention must prove that it is valid. Here the claimant asserts that the 2002 codicil is invalid, and it is the first defendant who is in effect propounding it. So the legal burden of proving that the codicil is valid is borne by the first defendant. She is however assisted by certain presumptions of fact which operate in relation to wills and probate. I will deal with this in more detail later.
13. The importance of the burden of proof is that, if the person who bears that burden satisfies the court, after considering the material that has been placed before the court, that something happened, then, for the purposes of deciding the case, it did happen. But if that person does not so satisfy the court, then for those purposes it did not happen. The decision is binary. Either something happened, or it did not, and there is no room for ‘maybe’. That may mean that, in some cases, the result depends on who has the burden of proof.
Standard of proof
14. Secondly, the standard of proof in a civil case is very different from that in a criminal case. In a civil case it is merely the balance of probabilities. This means that, if the judge considers that a thing is more likely to have happened than not, then for the purposes of the decision it did happen. If on the other hand the judge considers that the likelihood of a thing's having happened does not exceed 50%, then for the purposes of the decision it did not happen. It is not necessary for the court to go further than this. There is certainly no need for any scientific certainty, such as (say) medical experts might be used to. However, the more serious the allegation, the more cogent must be the evidence needed to persuade the court that a thing is more likely than not to have happened.
Role of judges
15. Thirdly, in our system, judges are not investigators. They do not go looking for evidence. Instead, they decide cases on the basis of the material and arguments put before them by the parties. So, it is the responsibility of each party to find and put before the court the evidence and other material which each wishes to adduce, and formulate their legal arguments, in order to convince the judge to find in that party's favour. There are a few limited exceptions to this, but I need not deal with those here.
The fallibility of memory
16. Fourthly, more is understood today than previously about the fallibility of memory. In commercial cases, at least, where there are many documents available, and witnesses give evidence as to what happened based on their memories, which may be faulty, civil judges nowadays often prefer to rely on the documents in the case, as being more objective: see Gestmin SGPS SPA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm), [22]. This is not a commercial dispute, but a probate dispute. Nevertheless, it concerns money and property, in the way that many commercial disputes do, and there are a number of useful documents available. This is important in particular where, as here, the relevant facts occurred many years ago, some witnesses are no longer available to give their evidence, and the memories of those who are available have been dimmed by the passage of time.
17. In deciding the facts of this case, I have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monica Margaret Ramji v Graham John Harvey (in his capacity as Executor of the estate of Sugrim Orlando Ramji Deceased)
...Matters HHJ Monty KC: 1 On 6 July 2023, I handed down my reserved judgment following the 5-day trial of two preliminary issues: [2023] EWHC 1664 (Ch). The Second, Third and Eighth Defendants (represented by Ms Challenger), and the Fourth Defendant (Ms Neale, who was in person), were the su......