Singellos v Singellos
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 September 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 2353 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | HC09C00899 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 29 September 2010 |
[2010] EWHC 2353 (Ch)
Before: Andrew Simmonds QC
(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)
HC09C00899
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION
IN THE ESTATE of: SMARAGDA SINGELLOS DECEASED (PROBATE)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Mr Ulick Staunton (instructed by Hunters) for the Claimant Miss Elizabeth Weaver (instructed by Fladgate LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 April, 7 and 8 June 2010
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.
Introduction
1. Mrs Smaragda Singellos (“Mrs Singellos”) died on 30 April 2008 aged 78. Her husband George (“Mr Singellos”) predeceased her on 15 January 2008. She left two children, namely the Claimant (“Gabriella”) who was born in 1952 and the Defendant (“Christopher”) who was born in 1956.
2. In these proceedings Gabriella seeks to prove in solemn form what purports to be the last Will of Mrs Singellos dated 19 March 2008 (“the March Will”). In fact, as I will explain later in this Judgment, Gabriella's case is that Mrs Singellos executed two Wills on 19 March 2008 with the March Will superseding one executed an hour or so earlier in substantially the same form. In her pleaded case Gabriella relies on that earlier will in the alternative but, in the light of the evidence, it was not seriously suggested on her behalf in closing submissions that I should pronounce in favour of the earlier Will if the March Will were found to be invalid for any reason.
3. The March Will dealt only with Mrs Singellos’ UK estate. At her death she also had assets located in Cyprus and in the Isle of Man. Her assets in Cyprus were dealt with by a Will (“the Cyprus Will”) purportedly executed on 27 April 2008. The validity of the Cyprus Will has been challenged by Christopher and is the subject of litigation in Cyprus. I am not asked to make any findings in respect of it. Mrs Singellos’ assets in the Isle of Man (principally, as I understand it, accounts with Barclays Bank) are dealt with by a much earlier Will made on 16 October 1986 (“the 1986 Will”) the validity of which for this purpose is, as I understand it, not in dispute.
4. Christopher challenges the validity of the March Will on two grounds:
(1) he says that Gabriella (on whom the burden of proof lies) has not proved that it was duly executed in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 as amended; and
(2) he says that, in any event, Mrs Singellos did not know and approve of its contents.
5. By his Counterclaim Christopher seeks to prove the 1986 Will as being the Will which effectively deals with his mother's UK estate.
6. Gabriella also seeks a declaration that a number of documents purportedly executed by Mrs Singellos in the period between 21 and 28 April 2008 (“the Company Documents”) were validly executed. The Company Documents, if valid, operated in substance to accelerate certain of the dispositions contained in the March Will so as to effect inter vivos gifts of certain London properties to (in substance) Gabriella and Christopher. The purpose of the Company Documents was to save inheritance tax by moving those assets off-shore and then disposing of them inter vivos at a time when, so it is contended, Mrs Singellos was domiciled in Cyprus.
7. I was told that HM Revenue & Customs have not as yet accepted that the Company Documents, even if validly executed, were effective to achieve their purpose. That is not an issue which I am asked to decide. However, plainly, the inheritance tax saving scheme will have failed if the Company Documents were not validly executed.
8. Consistently with his challenge to the dispositions made by the March Will, Christopher challenges the validity of the Company Documents with a view to the disposal of Mrs Singellos’ UK estate being governed entirely by the 1986 Will. This challenge is based on two grounds:
(1) The documents purportedly executed by Mrs Singellos on 28 April 2008 were not in fact executed by her at all. As will appear, this is not an allegation of out-and-out forgery but it is said that the purported signatures of Mrs Singellos on the relevant documents were the product of a purely mechanical process whereby Mrs Singellos’ hand was guided by Gabriella (because Mrs Singellos was by this stage physically incapable of holding and controlling a pen) and that Mrs Singellos’ mind did not accompany her physical signature.
(2) In any event, Mrs Singellos did not have sufficient mental capacity to execute the documents purportedly executed by her on 28 April 2008.
It is not in dispute that Mrs Singellos had testamentary capacity on 19 March 2008.
9. Unfortunately, and even though Gabriella and Christopher are full brother and sister, their relationship has for many years been characterised by mutual suspicion and mistrust. As a result this litigation has been hard-fought and, on occasion, acrimonious. I emphasise at the outset that it is no part of the Court's function to investigate the precise reasons, still less to attribute blame, for the breakdown in the relationship between Gabriella and Christopher, although it will be necessary to refer to some incidents as part of the relevant background to the events of March and April 2008. Nor am I concerned with the fairness or otherwise of the dispositions purportedly made by Mrs Singellos in the light of the family's troubled history. I am concerned only with whether the March Will and the Company Documents were validly executed by her.
10. Gabriella was represented by Mr Ulick Staunton (instructed by Hunters). Christopher was represented by Miss Elizabeth Weaver (instructed by Fladgate LLP). I am grateful to both of them for their clear and helpful submissions.
Background facts
11. Mr and Mrs Singellos were born in Cyprus. They came to the UK in 1953 and thereafter ran grocery businesses in North London. They worked very hard and invested the profits of their businesses wisely. In the 1950s and 1960s they acquired a number of investment properties in London. Over the years they also purchased and inherited properties in Cyprus, particularly around Limassol.
12. At the time of Mr Singellos’ death in January 2008, the London properties were owned as follows:
(1) Mr Singellos owned 1, 3 and 5 Agar Grove, London NW1;
(2) Mrs Singellos owned 66A Connaught Gardens, Palmers Green, London N13 (the matrimonial home), 643 Green Lanes, London N8 and also 647 Green Lanes (the title to which also incorporated a property known as 4 Fairfax Mews).
13. Following her husband's death Mrs Singellos was also the holder of accounts with the Bank of Cyprus in London and Guernsey which had aggregate balances in excess of £2m and also of an account or accounts with Barclays Bank in the Isle of Man.
14. In October 1986 Mr and Mrs Singellos made Wills in substantially mirror image terms. By her will (that is, the 1986 Will) Mrs Singellos
(a) appointed as executors her husband and their Solicitor Mr Michael Votsis (a partner in YVA Solicitors of North Finchley);
(b) gave her jewellery and chattels to Gabriella;
(c) gave an amount equal to the nil-rate band for inheritance tax purposes at the date of her death to Gabriella and Christopher in equal shares;
(d) gave the residue of her (worldwide) estate to Mr Singellos.
Since Mr Singellos predeceased his wife, the residue of Mrs Singellos’ estate would pass as on intestacy (i.e. to Gabriella and Christopher in equal shares) if the March Will is invalid.
15. The 1986 Will was made by Mrs Singellos before the occurrence of events which resulted in a significant change in the relationship between Christopher on the one side and his parents and Gabriella on the other which I must now describe.
16. In 1987 Christopher met his future wife Iphigenia. They were engaged in December 1987 and married in June 1988. Regrettably, Christopher's relationship with his parents and with Gabriella soured following his marriage.
17. Christopher's evidence was to the following effect. His parents were very materialistic and did not respect Iphigenia's family because they were not wealthy (although in fact her father was a diplomat at the Cyprus High Commission). Christopher's parents suggested that Iphigenia was after the Singellos family's money. In this regard Christopher's parents were egged on by
Gabriella who resented and was jealous of Iphigenia. Christopher was caught in the middle between his family and his wife but naturally had to support his wife.
18. It seems that the relationship between Gabriella and Christopher was also damaged when, as Gabriella saw it, she was snubbed by being replaced as the maid of honour shortly before Christopher and Iphigenia's wedding.
19. Whatever the rights and wrongs of these events may be, the upshot was that after his marriage Christopher became estranged from his parents. Although it was punctuated by occasional periods of rapprochement, that estrangement continued at least until Mr Singellos’ death in early 2008, nearly twenty years later.
20. There was no contact whatever between Christopher and his parents between 1988 and 1993. There appears to have been a short period of contact in early 1993.
21. Sadly, in October 1993, Iphigenia's parents were killed in a car crash. Contact between Christopher and his parents was renewed following this but they lost touch again between 1994 and 1997 and then again until about June 2000.
22. Meanwhile, in 1995 Mr and Mrs Singellos retired from running their grocery shops and thereafter divided their time between Cyprus and the UK. From about 2000 onwards they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney
-
Re Smith (Deceased); Kicks and another v Leigh
...of capacity to make an inter vivos gift (as opposed to testamentary capacity) made after the coming into force of the MCA 2005. ( Singellos v Singellos [2010] EWHC 2352 (Ch) concerned a post-MCA inter vivos gift but the MCA does not appear to have been considered). I set out first the tests......
-
Larina Jacobs-Lamothe v Janet Hendricks, Rona Hendricks-Brown and Bernice Hendricks-Gomes
...1 Sw. & Tr. 540 17 Fuller v Strum [2002] 2 ALL ER 87; Reynolds v Reynolds [2005] EWHC (Ch) 6 18 Singellos, Singellos v Singellos [2010] EWHC 2353 (Ch) at [91] 19 [2008] WTLR 411 20 [2013] EWHC 13 (Ch) 21 [2008] WTLR 389 22 [2005] WTLR 587 23 Barry v Butlin at page 485; Guardhouse v Blac......
-
Weekly Update - A Summary Of Recent Developments In Insurance, Reinsurance And Litigation Law - 08/11
...CMCS v Taylor Application for wasted costs order/duties of solicitors in relation to disclosure http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/324.html The winning defendant to an action applied for a wasted costs order against the claimant's solicitors. It was alleged that they had breached t......
-
Table of Cases
...Simpson, Re; Schaniel v Simpson [1977] 127 NLJ 487, (1977) 121 Sol Jo 224, [1977] LS Gaz R 187, ChD 45, 46, 56 Singellos v Singellos [2010] EWHC 2353 (Ch), [2011] Ch 324, [2011] 2 WLR 1111, [2011] WTLR 327 51 Slattery and Jagger v Jagger [2015] EWHC 3976 (Ch), [2017] WTLR 321, [2016] All ER......
-
Testamentary Capacity
...on the basis of the rule in Parker v Felgate . This principle was also applied to an inter vivos transaction in Singellos v Singellos [2010] EWHC 2353 (Ch). 4.5 MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 AND THE TEST FOR CAPACITY UNDER COMMON LAW The MCA 2005 came into force on 1 October 2007. Section 1 sets......