Peter Wilkinson v Jessica Hicken
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Williams |
| Judgment Date | 18 May 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 1983 (Ch) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: PT-2020-BHM-000127 |
[2023] EWHC 1983 (Ch)
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Richard Williams
sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Case No: PT-2020-BHM-000127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AT BIRMINGHAM
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES PROPERTY
TRUSTS AND PROBATE (ChD)
Birmingham Civil And Family Justice Centre
Priory Courts
33 Bull Street
Birmingham
B4 6DS
Legal Representation
Mr Angus Burden (instructed by Freeths LLP) on behalf of the Claimants
Mrs Jessica Hicken, the Defendant, appeared in person
(Hearing dates: 9 and 18 May 2023. Judgment delivered orally. This transcript has been approved by the Judge.)
Introduction
This is my judgment following the trial on written evidence for a declaration in solemn form that the last will of Norman Walter Gill dated 15 February 2018 (“ the Will”) is valid.
For ease of reference and with no disrespect intended, I shall, in the course of this judgment, refer to family members by their first names.
Background
By way of general background, I refer to and adopt the very detailed chronology prepared on behalf of the Claimants, who are the Trustees of the Norman Gill Charitable Trust (“ the Charitable Trust”), which was established on 16 September 1992 and is the residuary beneficiary under the Will. The primary stated purpose of the Charitable Trust is to benefit the people of the city and county of Leicester.
By way of specific background, Norman was born on 24 January 1935.
In 1964, Norman married Mary and they had three children together:
a. Jessica, who is the named Defendant in these proceedings, born on 16 December 1964;
b. Marcus, born on 23 January 1966; and
c. Elizabeth, born on 17 March 1968.
Mary had a son, Julian, from a previous relationship. Julian was born on 18 December 1960.
Neither Marcus nor Elizabeth have children. Jessica has two children, Natasha, born on 1 December 1995, and Tom, born on 19 April 2006. Julian has a son, Harry, born on 13 April 1995.
Norman was a successful and driven businessman, but, in 1979, he was charged with and pleaded guilty to conspiring to murder Mary. Rather than being sent to prison, Norman was made the subject of a Hospital Order, pursuant to section 60 of the Mental Health Act 1959. The order expired on 6 July 1980. By way of context, on 15 December 1980, the treating consultant, Dr Curson, wrote a letter in support of Norman's application for a shotgun licence. Dr Curson stated as follows:
“I first examine[d] Mr Norman Gill at St Andrews Hospital Northampton on 11 April 1979, when he was referred for psychiatric opinion, in the context of being charged for soliciting others to murder his wife. He was subsequently admitted to St Andrews Hospital and had already received extensive treatment, when he appeared before Leicester Crown Court where he was based on section 60 treatment order under the Mental Health Act, 1959. He was examined by three other consultant psychiatrists and there was general agreement that he had suffered from a significant psychiatric disturbance which was accepted as mitigation by the court.
His principal problems at that time might be summarised as follows. Mr Gill was an ambitious, energetic and at times ruthless man, who could also be oversensitive, emotional and prone to jealousy. A combination of personality, the deaths of his father and close friend, depression of mood, marital difficulties, failure in business, alcohol dependence and drug abuse led to a paranoid state of a psychotic nature, which principally manifested itself as a morbid jealousy syndrome. By the time of his court appearance, he had already responded satisfactorily to treatment and it was accepted that the constellation of emotional, behavioural and social circumstances was so unlikely to recur, that such an offence would not be repeated. He remained an inpatient for several more months……….. and then continue[d] treatment [as a] day patient, and finally as an outpatient. Since then, he has remained totally abstinent from alcohol and drugs, pursued his business interests successfully, readjusted his total lifestyle and successfully cope[d] with numerous legal problems related to his divorce proceedings.
In my opinion, Mr Gill is a fit person to hold a shotgun licence. His motive for doing so is consistent with the development of healthy outside leisure interests which were always part of his rehabilitation programme.”
Norman was able successfully to rebuild his wealth, primarily through a property and investment company, Whitehall Industrial Securities Limited (“ WISL”).
Norman had no or no significant relationship with Julian from at the latest 2009 and, after which time, Julian was excluded from any of Norman's wills.
On 8 May 2009, Norman wrote to Elizabeth in the following terms:
“Since Easter I have given much thought to your strategy of avoidance of me over the past three/four years……. so I shall ask Martin to provide payment of £10,762.32……. regardless of the consequential tax, I will also ask him to get and send appropriate forms for you to pay your own endowment….
Finally, I will inform, instruct my remaining family/executors that your presence will not be expected/allowed at my funeral.”
On 8 September 2010, Norman established a discretionary trust known as the Gill Welfare Family Trust (“ the Family Trust”), of which Jessica and Marcus and their issue, but not Elizabeth or Julian or their issue, were named as discretionary beneficiaries. The trust period was for 125 years. Later that month, Norman executed a will leaving his residuary estate, which he then anticipated would be worth approximately £2 million to the Family Trust. The accompanying memorandum of wishes addressed to the trustees of the Family Trust stated Norman's wish that the Family Trust be used for the purposes of education, medical care and welfare of the beneficiaries.
On 12 August 2013, Norman wrote to Marcus and his wife in the following terms:
“It is now over two weeks since you put the phone down during our discussion….. I now realise how much you resented me…….. and since Tuesday have made no effort to re-connect but chose to phone Jess/ Rob on Saturday to inform them that neither you or Helen would be visiting as arranged……. so I have to assume that your side-stepping, Svengali responses now and in the past are a clear indication of how little, if at all, you value me/ family.
I am prompted to write by way of making my position and feelings clear as the Exeter saga has shown me how fragile my ‘family’ situation was/is with you………. unlike me you have been fortunate to live through a period incorporating what is called ‘Dad's Bank’ as without it all you would almost certainly be operating on lower platforms.
Your attempts to muffle/ justify your anti-family behaviour towards me when the combined breakdown of both my business interests and my 1964 marriage/family exploded in 1979 will be truthfully detailed in my 1907–2014 biography when research, ghost writing and printing should all be completed.”
By letter date of 17 August 2013, Marcus responded as follows:
“Thank you for your letter of 12/08/2013.
I am saddened to learn that you no longer consider it worthwhile to maintain an ongoing relationship with me, seemingly on the basis that I do not enjoy a level of contact with one of my three siblings that you deem appropriate. I feel that this is indicative of the lack of value which you ascribe to me, as an individual, and to the relationship we had. However, I shall of course respect your decision and it therefore only remains for me to thank you for past assistance, to wish you well for your twilight retirement and to offer my congratulations on having given up smoking.”
By letter dated 28 November 2013, Norman wrote to Jessica and her husband Robert in the following terms:
“Following Wednesday's telephone discussion, I have to admit you have won the ‘Battle’ to preclude me from visiting Exeter……. I have made other arrangements which will not be inconvenient to anyone, I'm not only hurt and disappointed but very, very, offended, so I am informing you that you've lost the ‘War’ in that I have now terminated our onesided relationship, I say this as for many years I have aided you financially and been supportive about your medical/educational/ transport and domestic problems.
With regard to the Family Welfare Trust, this has now being scrapped and my will is being adjusted to exclude all four (difficult to say children at your ages) of you as I feel I have subscribed enough to getting you all a degree of security and reasonable lifestyles appropriate to your abilities/inabilities…… With regards future communication, there will be no personal contact by yourselves or intermediaries, I do not, I repeat, do not want anything written, emails or telephoning to me or Martin as if necessary I will use BT ‘choose to refuse’ service and then if necessary I will involve my solicitors.”
Enclosed in the same envelope, albeit dated 29 November 2013 was a second letter, which stated as follows:
“The attached, self explanatory, letter was drafted by me yesterday, it wasn't sent as Martin had the day at Links Lodge however, since talking to Robert, I've decided to suspend my proposed termination of our relationship with the proviso that from now on our only communication will be between me and Robert who may in my opinion be continuing to father both your children out of fatherly love and concern for his son Tom, you know that I find your separate finance and input accounting to be odd as it's usually used by unmarried mistrusting couples as a cautionary precursor to separation.
I shall continue to alter my will and scrap the Family Welfare Trust which needed to be altered perforce...
To continue reading
Request your trial