In the matter of: THE ESTATE OF MRS NE BROCK (DECEASED)
DAMIAN LINES (as administrator of the estate)V
1. MAUREEN WILCOX
2. GARY WILCOX
3. CLIVE BROCK
4. CAROLINE BROCK
5. MICHELLE LONG
The claimant was the administrator of the estate of Nancy Elizabeth Brock (deceased) who executed a ‘homemade’ will on 22 April 2005. The first defendant was appointed as executrix. The first, third, fourth and fifth defendants were the adult children of the deceased to whom she had bequeathed ‘all the money’ immediately following a reference to the price of £100,000 to be paid for the deceased’s house at 6 Mildfield Estate, Pontypool which she had agreed to sell to the first defendant and her husband, the second defendant. In the event, the defendant later transferred the house to the first and second defendants for nil consideration on 18 July 2005. Aside from the house, the remainder of the estate was worth about £81,000. The deceased, who had moved into a care home, died in 2014. A question subsequently arose as to whether the deceased had capacity to transfer the house or whether (if she did) it was procured by undue influence. On account of the potential dispute, the first defendant did not actually prove the will and, by agreement, the claimant (who was an independent solicitor) was appointed administrator of the estate (with the will annexed) on 11 September 2015. On the advice of counsel, being concerned that he might be criticised by one or more of the beneficiaries whatever action he took or did not take, the claimant sought a Beddoe’s order to authorise him in his capacity as administrator to issue a claim against the first and second defendants to set aside the transfer of the deceased’s house. Originally, the application was not contested. However, at a hearing on 17 December 2018, the question arose whether this was an appropriate case for a Beddoe’s order since all those interested in the estate were adult and sui juris, and litigation about the lifetime transfer could properly be carried on between the defendants as substantive parties, with the claimant joined in as a nominal party so as to be bound by the decision. As a result, the hearing was adjourned and directions given for the parties to submit written submissions on the question which had been raised. It was at this point that the first and second defendants changed their position and indicated that they were now opposed to the making of a Beddoe’s order.