The Baronetcy of Pringle of Stichill
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Hodge |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] UKPC 16 |
| Docket Number | Reference No 0079 of 2015 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[2016] UKPC 16
Privy Council
Lord Neuberger
Lady Hale
Lord Mance
Lord Clarke
Lord Reed
Lord Hughes
Lord Hodge
Reference No 0079 of 2015
Referral Under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833
The First Claimant
James Guthrie QC Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw Bt QC
(Instructed by M A Law)
The Second Claimant
Timothy Scott QC Ken Collins Emily Page
(Instructed by Batchelors Solicitors)
Heard on 25 and 26 November 2015 and 25 January 2016
In this reference under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833, Her Majesty requires the Board to advise as to (i) who is now entitled to be entered on the Official Roll of the Baronetage as the Baronet of Pringle of Stichill and (ii) whether the evidence resulting from the obtaining of a DNA sample from Sir Steuart Robert Pringle in late 2009 or early 2010 should be admitted in order to determine the first question.
There are two claimants. One is Simon Robert Pringle ("Simon"), the son of Sir Steuart Robert Pringle, who was enrolled as the tenth baronet and who died on 18 April 2013. The other is his cousin, Norman Murray Archibald MacGregor Pringle ("Murray"). The questions on which Her Majesty requires the advice of the Board raise more general questions as to whether a person's right to claim a title of honour can be lost by the passage of time or excluded by the acknowledgement by parents of another child's status as heir, by enrolment of that child on the Official Roll of Baronetage, or otherwise. In this reference the question relates to a title of honour. No land or other property is in issue. But the questions may be more generally relevant to property rights, if, for example, land is held in trust for the heir male of a deceased person, or for the rightful holder of a title of honour, whether a dukedom, earldom or otherwise.
In giving its advice the Board also discusses questions of breach of confidence and data protection which counsel for the claimants have raised in their submissions.
On 5 January 1683 His Majesty King Charles II granted the Baronetcy of Stichill to Robert Pringle of Stichill "ac heredibus masculis de suo corpore", which translates as "and the male heirs of his body".
No question has been raised as to who were the male heirs of the first baronet of Stichill until events which occurred in the early 20th century. The eighth baronet was Sir Norman Robert Pringle, who lived from 1871 till 1919. On 16 October 1902 the eighth baronet married Florence Madge Vaughan. She gave birth to a son, Norman Hamilton Pringle, on 13 May 1903. She later gave birth to two further sons, Ronald Steuart Pringle, who was born on 26 April 1905 and was the father of the claimant, Murray, and James Drummond Pringle who was born on 12 April 1906. She also gave birth to a daughter, Mary Elizabeth Pringle, in 1916.
The claimant, Murray, has asserted that Norman Hamilton Pringle was not the son of the eighth baronet and that accordingly the second son, Ronald Steuart Pringle, (Murray's father) was the male heir of the first baronet. Ronald Steuart Pringle died on 24 July 1968. Murray claims that as a result he then became and now is the male heir of the first baronet.
Simon is the grandson of Norman Hamilton Pringle, who married Winifred Olive Curran on 15 September 1927. Winifred Olive Pringle gave birth to Simon's father, Steuart Robert Pringle on 21 July 1928.
Norman Hamilton Pringle was enrolled without opposition as the ninth baronet. He died on 8 February 1961. After the death of his father, Steuart Robert Pringle was enrolled without opposition as the tenth baronet in 1961. He had a distinguished military career and was awarded the honour of KCB in 1982. The Board refers to him hereafter as "Sir Steuart Pringle".
Murray's challenge to Simon's entitlement to be enrolled as the 11th baronet rests principally on DNA evidence, which the Board discusses below, but among the papers which the parties have made available to the Board, there are suggestions that there was controversy within the Pringle family in the past as to the entitlement of Norman Hamilton Pringle to become the ninth baronet. Margaret Caroline Underwood recently produced a statutory declaration in support of the alteration of the Roll of Baronets. In it she stated that Murray's father, Ronald Steuart Pringle, had told her and her sister, Rosemary Jean Pringle, who had married his second son (Murray's younger brother) in 1965, that he believed that Norman Hamilton Pringle was illegitimate and that he (Ronald) was the first born son of the eighth baronet.
Mrs Underwood also stated that the eighth baronet's executors implemented his testamentary instructions to deliver to his eldest son who attained 21 years of age his furniture, pictures and other heirlooms by giving them to Murray's father, Ronald Steuart Pringle, who in turn had left them to Murray. Mrs Underwood produced evidence that Florence Madge Vaughan had given birth to an illegitimate son in December 1901 and had given him up for adoption. She also produced evidence in the form of a transcript of the private ledger of the eighth baronet between May 1918 and March 1919 which sadly narrated the breakdown of his marriage at that time and his regrets, but which did not suggest that he had doubts as to the paternity of Norman Hamilton Pringle. The eighth baronet, who was a serving Army officer, died in a military hospital on 18 April 1919 of tuberculosis, which he had contracted while on active duty in France.
On 10 January 1920 Lady (Florence Madge) Pringle signed a statutory declaration in support of the application of her son, Norman Hamilton Pringle, to be enrolled as the ninth baronet in which she stated that he was the son of the eighth baronet. Mrs Underwood suggested that this, and also his birth certificate which she had also signed, were perjured documents.
The principal evidence which Murray advances in support of his claim to have the Roll of Baronetage corrected and to be entered as baronet of Stichill is evidence of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) which arose in this way. In about 2009 Murray established "the Pringle Surname Project" which sought to determine the chieftainship of the clan Pringle. On 8 October 2009 Murray wrote a letter to Simon in which he introduced himself. He explained that he was administrator of the project to identify the clan chief, that the last clan chief had died without a male heir in 1738 and that the project sought to identify the rightful current chief by tracing the male family branch lines of the Pringle family using Y-STR genetic testing. He urged Simon and his father to join the project by providing a mouth swab for the DNA test. Murray sent Simon an email reminder on 30 November 2009. On 13 December 2009, after discussing the matter with Simon, Sir Steuart Pringle, the tenth baronet, wrote to Murray stating that he was interested in the project but questioned whether, as he was 81, the rightful claimant would be identified within his lifetime. He stated that "In the meantime I will be happy to do whatever I can to help". In a prescient postscript he said "your faith in DNA is touching, but what happens when (if?) a male cuckoo enters the nest?"
Murray replied on 21 December 2009 to intimate that he was arranging for a test kit to be sent to Sir Steuart Pringle's home. He also emailed Simon to ask him to ignore the invoice for the test, which he would receive, as the cost had already been met.
On 8 July 2010 Murray wrote to Sir Steuart Pringle to tell him of the results of the Pringle Surname Project and enclosed an analysis of fifteen Y-chromosome DNA results as at 1 July 2010. He stated that he had spoken to Simon several days earlier. Murray explained that he, his brother, James B Pringle, and his (Murray's) son, Alastair S Pringle, had identical Y-chromosome DNA haplotype test results and formed the core. Three other Pringles were conclusively related to the core and to each other. He continued:
"However, there are 12 differences between your results and mine and therefore we are not related through the male line. The analysis shows yours to be a separate lineage not related to any of the other participants.
I had hoped that the Project would underpin your nomination as Chief of the Clan, but this course is obviously no longer feasible in the circumstances. More importantly, the issue of lineage has a direct impact on the Stichill baronetcy. After a great deal of thought, I believe that it is my duty to do what I can to restore the baronetcy to its rightful lineage. This is why I am sending you the enclosed 'Caveat to be entered on the Official Roll of the Baronetage' dated 8 July 2010."
Murray then quoted from advice which he had received from the Assistant Registrar of the Peerage and Baronetage on the effect of the caveat and his suggestion that the appropriate time for showing that the title had passed down the wrong line would be on the decease of the tenth baronet. The caveat gave notice that Murray had a claim to the baronetcy of Pringle of Stichill and requested notice be given of any claim lodged in respect of the baronetcy. Murray copied his letter to Simon, Alastair S R Pringle, the Lord Lyon King of Arms and the Registrar of the Peerage & Baronetage.
Sir Steuart Pringle replied on 3 August with a terse acknowledgement of receipt of this letter. Murray thereafter received the assistance of Sir Simon Watson Bt in gathering evidence in pursuit of his claim. Sir Simon Watson corresponded with Sir Steuart Pringle in 2011 and 2012 but there was no meeting of minds.
Murray pursued an application in the Family Division of the High Court for a declaration of parentage under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986, in which he sought...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mr Easdale Campbell (ap) Against (first) Scottish Ministers; (second) Sedexo Limited; (third) Tasco Services Ltd; And (fourth) G4s Care And Justice Services Uk Ltd
...He had no contact with the third defenders and so could not complain to them. Reference was made to In re Baronetcy of Pringle of Stichill 2016 SLT 723, a Privy Council case, in which it was emphasised, at paragraph 63 and 64, that knowledge was crucial in considering whether someone could ......
-
BC v Chief Constable, Police Scotland
...EMLR 12; [2008] 2 FLR 599; [2008] 3 FCR 661; [2008] HRLR 33; [2008] UKHRR 736; [2008] Fam Law 732 Pringle of Stichill (Baronetcy of) [2016] UKPC 16; 2016 SC (PC) 1; 2016 SLT 723; [2016] 1 WLR 2870; [2017] 1 All ER 106; [2016] WTLR 1117 R v Chief Constable, North Wales Police and ors, ex p A......
-
Janice Elizabeth Nield-Moir v Lorraine Karen Freeman
...that the deceased was the defendant's father, rebuttable on the balance of probabilities ( Re Baronetcy of Pringle of Stichill [2016] 1 WLR 2870, [36]–[41]; Family Law Reform Act 1969, s 26). Moreover, after the deceased was divorced from Veronica, the deceased paid maintenance in respect o......
-
Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation and Others v Revenue and Customs Commissioners; Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation and Others v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
...ER 622, CAPractice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 WLR 1234; [1966] 3 All ER 77, HL(E)Pringle of Stichill (Baronetcy of), In re [2016] UKPC 16; [2016] 1 WLR 2870; [2017] 1 All ER 106, PCPrudential Assurance Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2018] UKSC 39; [2019] AC 929; [2018] 3 W......