Patricia Mary Wright v David Ian Waters and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Judge Behrens |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 3614 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: A30LS146 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 06 November 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 3614 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
LEEDS DISTRICT REGISTRY
IN THE INHERITANCE (PROVISION FOR FAMILY AND DEPENDANTS) ACT 1975
AND IN THE ESTATE OF MARY BEATRICE WATERS DECEASED
The Court House
Oxford Row
Leeds LS1 3BG
His Honour Judge Behrens
sitting as a Judge of the High Court in Leeds
Case No: A30LS146
David Rose (instructed by Ridley & Hall) for the Claimant
Neil Addison (instructed by Steele & Son) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 28, 29 October 2014
This is a claim by Patricia Wright against the estate of her mother Mary Waters who died on 29 December 2010 at the age of 80.
The estate comprised principally of cash totalling £56,600 and a flat in Preston valued at £85,000. There were modest liabilities leaving a net estate sworn for probate purposes in the sum of £138,701.
Mary Waters had 2 children — Patricia Wright born on 9 August 1950 who is now 64 years old and David Waters born on 12 April 1954 who is now aged 60.
Patricia Wright has been married 3 times and is now a widow. She has a daughter Victoria Martin born in May 1973. Victoria Martin has 2 children, Anastasia ("Tansie") and Harry.
David Waters is married to Susan Waters. They have 4 children Lucy, Daniel, Harry and Poppy.
Mary Waters made her will on 27 January 2009. It made no provision for Patricia Wright or her children and grandchildren. This was explained in an explanatory letter she signed the same day. David and Susan Waters are appointed as executors. Each of their children was left £5,000. There were further legacies totalling £7,000 in favour of her sister in law and a niece. The residue of the estate was left to David and Susan Waters..
Patricia Wright's claim against the estate is put in two ways. First she claims on the basis of a proprietary estoppel. There are two strands to the claim. The first is said to arise as a result of promises made by her father between the late 1960's and 1980's in respect of work carried out in two shops owned by her father and mother. The second is said to arise as a result of a promise made by her mother shortly after her father died in June 1986 in relation to a Spanish villa just south of Barcelona.
The second basis for the claim is under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 ("the 1975 Act"). It is not in dispute that Patricia Wright is eligible to make a claim as a daughter of Mary Waters. It is equally not in dispute that she has financial and medical problems. She accordingly contends that it was not objectively reasonable for the will to make no provision for her maintenance.
The executors oppose both claims. There are significant disputes as to the facts. The executors contend that the work carried out by Patricia Wright and the vagueness of the promises (even if proved) do not come within a measurable distance of establishing a claim to proprietary estoppel.
The principal defence raised by the executors relates to the estrangement between Patricia Wright and her mother and her conduct in relation to a sum of £10,000 sent to her in 1998. As will appear later in this judgment, relations between mother and daughter were difficult. However in October 2001 at a time when her third husband had had a stroke Patricia Wright sent a letter to her mother disowning her, stating that she did not wish to communicate with her and wishing that she was dead. Apart from one short telephone conversation shortly after that letter Patricia Wright did not talk to or see her mother again.
The executors contend that Patricia Wright's conduct disentitles her to any award either on the basis of the 1975 or proprietary estoppel.
The evidence
I have been provided with lengthy witness statements dealing with a wide variety of matters many of which are not relevant to any of the matters that I have to decide. It is plain that very different impressions were gained of Mary Waters by Patricia Wright and Victoria Martin on the one hand and David Waters and members of his family.
Only 5 people gave live evidence before me. The main witnesses were Patricia Wright (who relied on 3 witness statements), Victoria Martin, David Waters and Susan Waters.
At the end of the evidence the executors' solicitor, Basil Dearing was called to deal with a minor query over one item in the estate.
Patricia Wright's case was supported by witness statements from George Woods (who took a neutral stance), Jamie Martin (Victoria Martin's ex husband), Irene Spencer Woods (Patricia Wright's cousin) and Kathleen Airey (a friend who met Patricia Wright in 1988).
The executors' case was supported by witness statements from Barbara Basey (Mary Waters' sister-in law), Lucy Dunleavy (the executors' eldest child) and 2 solicitors who deal with the execution of the will.
As Mr Addison noted in his skeleton argument:
Much of the Claimants evidence seems to consist of an assault on the character of her late mother, Mary Waters, in general terms asserting that she was mean and uncaring. Much of the Defendants evidence consists of a defence of the character of Mary Waters. The differences between the statements of the two Grand Children; Victoria Martin (daughter of the Claimant) [pages 211 – 218] and Lucy Dunleavy [pages 256 – 259] (daughter of the Defendants) being particularly marked in this respect.
Both Counsel agreed that little if any of this evidence would assist the court in determining the issues that arise under the 1975 Act or proprietary estoppel. Accordingly the cross-examination was confined to the issues that were thought to be relevant. I endorsed that approach. This course enabled the evidence and submissions to be completed within the 2 days allotted for the trial. I shall, therefore in this judgment concentrate on the relevant issues and not deal with many of the matters in the witness statements.
It is a very unfortunate feature of this case that there is absolutely no love lost between Patricia Wright and her brother David Waters. Each lost no opportunity of criticising the other. I, of course, have no idea what, if any, negotiations have taken place between the parties. It is, however, a family dispute over a relatively modest estate which cried out for some form of alternative dispute resolution. Patricia Wright has the benefit of public funding. Her costs are said to be of the order of £67,000 inclusive of VAT, The executors' costs are more modest —£30,000. Whilst Patricia Wright's costs appear to be high for this type of litigation the fact remains that costs of £97,000 have been spent in respect of an estate worth £139,000. I also note that in his witness statement David Waters has said that he is determined to respect his mother's wishes and fight the case whatever the cost.
Relevant Areas of Fact
The shops
Patricia Wright left school in 1966 at the age of 16. She was still living at home. She obtained full time (but not particularly well paid) work as a library assistant. She remained living at home with her parents and at no time was required to pay for her board and lodging.
In 1968 she became engaged to be married to her first husband. In the same year her parents bought a shop at 215 Leyland Lane, Preston. It was a sweet shop and general store. It was open 7 days a week from 8 a.m to 8 p.m.
Patricia Wright says she was required to work in the shop for no wages regularly. She says that she would work regularly in the shop every weekend, most evenings and holidays.
David Waters (who was 14 when the shop was bought) also recollects working in the shop. He accepts that Patricia Wright worked in the shop from time to time but suggests that she has exaggerated the extent of her work. For example he suggests that if his mother went into the house to make the tea then Patricia Wright or he would have been asked to look after the shop.
Patricia Wright married her first husband in 1971. Patricia Wright said that she continued to work in the shop between 1971 and 1973 a couple of evenings a week and at weekends. She said that they had a house near the shop and from time to time her husband helped. David Waters suggested that after she was married the help was very infrequent.
In 1973 Victoria Martin was born. Patricia Wright said she still helped even though they were living some 18 miles away. She said that her father would come and collect her about twice a week and Victoria. She would help in the shop whilst her parents looked after Victoria Martin.
In 1975 her parents bought another shop in Eldon Street, Preston. It is not in dispute that Patricia Wright ran the Eldon Street shop from 1975 – 1978 and that the family moved from their property in Southport to the shop in order for her to run it. It is equally not in dispute that no rent was paid in respect of the occupation. There was, however, a considerable area of dispute in relation to the Eldon Street shop. According to Patricia Wright she was not paid anything for running the Eldon Street shop full time. The shop was sold in 1978 because her marriage broke down in 1978 and she could not cope. She said that the shop was profitable.
David Waters did not accept that Patricia Wright was paid nothing whilst she was at Eldon Street though he did not know the precise arrangement between Patricia Wright and her father. He said the Eldon Street shop was loss making and it was sold because it had been "run into the ground". There is some support for David Waters' evidence in the somewhat partisan witness statement of Barbara Basey who says:
While Pat was married to Bob, Mary and Harold set them up in business in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial