Steven Leslie Pead v Prostate Cancer UK
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Master Teverson |
| Judgment Date | 22 March 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 642 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: PT-2022-000196 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
[2023] EWHC 642 (Ch)
DEPUTY Master Teverson
Case No: PT-2022-000196
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
PROPERTY TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (Ch)
IN THE ESTATE OF JAMES MURRAY MCKAY DECEASED
Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Timothy Clarke (instructed by Cognitive Law Limited solicitors) for the Claimant
Sam Chandler (instructed by Withers LLP solicitors) for the First to Third Defendant
Hearing date 18 January 2023
Approved Judgment
This Judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 22 March 2023 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by email and by release to the National Archive
DEPUTY Master Teverson
This claim concerns the last will and testament dated 3 August 2016 (“the will”) of James Murray McKay (“the deceased”) who died on 11 February 2021. The primary relief sought by the Claimant is an order for the rectification of the will pursuant to section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982. The Claimant also asks the court to interpret clause 11 of the will and direct how the deceased's residuary estate is to be divided.
The Claimant, Steven Pead, is the stepson of the deceased. His mother Dorothy was married to the deceased but predeceased him in March 2015. The deceased had been previously married. The deceased had three children Andrew, Murray and Lydia McKay by his first marriage.
By clause 1 of the will the deceased appointed Steven to be his executor and trustee. By clause 4 the deceased made gifts of money that were set out in clauses 4.1 to 4.8. By clause 4.1 he gave £50,000 each free of all taxes to his stepson Steven Pead and his wife Sally Pead, the Fourth Defendant. By clause 4.2 he gave £10,000 to his step great granddaughter, Leah Grace Jones, the Fifth Defendant. By clause 4.3 he gave £20,000 each to his step grandson Adam Pead, the Eighth Defendant, his step granddaughter Lisa Jones, whose estate is the Seventh Defendant and his step grandson Joshua Pead, referred to in the will as Josh Pead, the Sixth Defendant, and the person ordered by Master Kaye on 17 October 2022 to represent the estate of Lisa Jones. For convenience, I shall refer to those pecuniary legatees together as “the family members”.
By clause 4.4 the deceased gave £2,000 to Macmillan Cancer Support for the benefit of Macmillan Nurses at Kingston Hospital, London. By clause 4.5 he gave £2,000 to Macmillan Cancer Support for the benefit of Macmillan Nurses at Worthing Hospital, West Sussex. By clause 4.6 he gave £6,000 to MacMillan Cancer Support for the benefit of Macmillan Nurses' work generally. By clause 4.7 he gave £5,000 to Cancer Research UK. By clause 4.8 he gave £12,000 to Prostate Cancer UK. I shall refer to those legatees together as “the charities”.
By clauses 5, 6 and 7, the deceased made specific gifts of chattels and jewellery to his children Andrew, Murray and Lydia McKay respectively.
By clause 8 the deceased made a specific gift of his property 26 Sea Lane Gardens, Ferring, Worthing or such other property as was his principal place of residence at the date of his death. By clause 8.1 he gave a 25% share to Steven Pead. By clause 8.2, he gave a 25% share to his stepson Keith Pead. By clause 8.3, the remaining 50% share was to accrue and be added to his Residuary Estate under clause 10 of his will.
By clause 10 the deceased directed his trustees to hold the residue of his estate to pay any debts funeral and testamentary expenses, to satisfy all gifts of specified property referred to in his will, to pay all gifts of money referred to in his will and to deal with the remainder as directed.
Clause 11 is headed Gifts of Residue. It reads:-
“Subject as above my Trustees shall hold my Residuary Estate upon trust for such of the beneficiaries named in Clauses 4.1 to 4.8 inclusive absolutely as shall survive me and in accordance with the provisions relating to each gift.”
The Claimant asks the court to rectify clause 11 of the will so as to refer to clauses 4.1 to 4.3 inclusive instead of to clauses 4.1 to 4.8 inclusive. It is the Claimant's case that the deceased only intended the family members referred to in clauses 4.1 to 4.3 inclusive to share in the residue of his estate and not the charities named in clauses 4.4 to 4.8 inclusive.
The claimant also asks the court to determine what is meant by the words “in accordance with the provisions relating to each gift” at the end of clause 11 and to determine whether the residuary estate should be divided pro rata or equally between the residuary beneficiaries and if equally whether by sub-clause or by named beneficiary.
At the time he made the will the deceased was a widower aged 79. He had three children from his first marriage two of whom he had not seen for around 20 years. He had two stepsons — the Claimant Steven Pead who was married with three children and a granddaughter and Keith Pead who did not have children.
The deceased lived at 26 Sea Lane Gardens, Ferring, West Sussex BN12 5EQ. In 2016 he gave the approximate value of the house as £360,000 on the will questionnaire of Burnand Brazier Malcolm Wilson the trading name of BBMW Limited (“BBMW”) to whom the deceased went in July 2016 to make a will. In addition the deceased had not insubstantial savings and investments. The net value of his estate was sworn for probate on 9 September 2021 as amounting to £964,845.31.
The Claimant says his stepfather was a simple and straightforward person. He says he believes it is likely the deceased instructed BBMW simply because they were close to where he would collect his newspaper from every week.
The deceased's initial instructions were taken by Mrs J.M. Sartin who was at the time a director in the firm of BBMW at BBMW's offices at Goring-by-Sea, West Sussex on 13 July 2016. Mrs Sartin says in paragraph 3 of her witness statement that on that occasion the deceased handed her a partially completed Will questionnaire the blank of which had been forwarded to him by the firm. She says the deceased also handed her two typed documents entitled “Will James Murray McKay” which were in a similar but not identical form. She says the deceased also handed her a handwritten document marked “To whom it may concern” explaining why it was his intention to exclude his children from his will.
The typed documents marked “Will of James Murray McKay” record that Steven Pead should be the executor; that on the sale of the deceased's property 26 Sea Lane Gardens, 50% was to be divided equally between Steven Pead and Keith Pead and that 50% was to be divided equally between the deceased's three children Andrew, Murray and Lydia McKay. There were to be pecuniary legacies of £10,000 to be put in trust for Leah Grace Jones until she reached 18, £1,000 for the Macmillan nurses at Kingston Hospital, Surrey, £1,000 for the Macmillan nurses at Worthing Hospital Sussex; £5,000 to be given to the Macmillan nurses UK; £5,000 to be given to Cancer Research UK; £10,000 to be given to Prostate Cancer UK; £20,000 to Adam Pead; £20,000 to Lisa Jones, and £20,000 to Josh Pead. There were to be gifts of chattels to Andrew, Murray and Lydia.
Mrs Sartin says in paragraph 4 of her witness statement that at the meeting on 13 July 2016 she made handwritten notes on one of the typed documents while taking the deceased's instructions. She says that she was instructed by the deceased on this visit that he intended to exclude his children Andrew, Murray and Lydia and leave 75% of his residue to his stepson Steven Pead and 25% to his stepson Keith Pead after payment of the pecuniary gifts. A copy of the typed document on which Mrs Sartin made her handwritten notes is before me at page 324 of the bundle. The notes record the deceased as saying he had had no contact whatsoever with his children for 20 years.
On 13 July 2016 Mrs Sartin wrote to the deceased thanking him for coming into the office to see her. She enclosed a draft of his new will together with a Commentary Sheet detailing the main provisions. The draft will contains money bequests in clauses 4.1 to 4.3 to the family members and in clauses 4.4 to 4.8 to the charities. It contains specific gifts of chattels to Andrew, Murray and Lydia in clauses 5, 6 and 7. Clause 10 directs that the residuary estate is to be held as to a 75% share for Steven Pead and as to a 25% share for Keith Pead. Clause 10.3 provided that if under clause 10 any share failed, such share should return to his residuary estate and be distributed to the other beneficiaries pro rata according to their shares. In Clause 11 the deceased declared he had not made any substantive provision in the will for his children as they had been estranged from him for some twenty years. Mrs Sartin states in paragraph 5 of her witness statement that the draft will was only ever intended to be an initial draft and that the words “for checking” were clearly marked on every page of this draft will.
On 15 July 2016 the deceased called into the offices of BBMW. An attendance note records that he had received the draft will but “thinks that the amounts are not quite correct”. The attendance note records the deceased asked for and was provided with a copy of the notes he had left with Mrs Sartin. He was not on that occasion seen by Mrs Sartin.
The deceased attended the offices of BBMW again on 27 July 2016 by prior appointment. Mrs Sartin was not available. The deceased was seen instead by Alison Hill who was at that time a director of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steven Leslie Pead v Prostate Cancer UK
...Archives Master Teverson 1 On 22 March 2023 I handed down my reserved judgment on the underlying claim with neutral citation number [2023] EWHC 642 (Ch) (“the judgment”) following a one day trial on 18 January 2023. On 6 April 2023 it was ordered by consent as between the Claimant and the ......