Randall v Randall [2016] EWCA Civ 494

Analysis

This appeal concerned when a party has standing to bring a probate claim. The appellant (H) and respondent (W) were divorced. As part of the divorce settlement, they agreed that if W were to inherit more than £100,000 from her mother, she would keep the £100,000 and the balance would be split equally between H and herself. On her death, W’s mother left £100,000 to W in her will and (after some small specific legacies) the balance of her estate (estimated at £150,000) to W’s children.

H brought a probate claim to challenge the validity of the will alleging that it was not duly executed in accordance with the provisions of s9 of the Wills Act 1837. If, as H contended, the will was invalid, he would be entitled to an estimated £75,000.

W contended that H had no standing to bring such a claim. At first instance, Deputy Master Collaço Moraes determined that H did not have a sufficient interest in the will and therefore had no standing to bring the claim. H appealed to the Court of Appeal.

It was agreed between the parties that in order to bring a probate claim, a claimant must have an ‘interest’ in the estate in accordance with r57.7 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The central issue between the parties was whether the creditor of a beneficiary of an estate, such as H, has an ‘interest’ in the estate.

Held:

1. 1) The Court of Appeal held that the deputy master had been wrong to assimilate the position of a creditor of a beneficiary of an estate with that of a creditor of an estate.
2. 2) The interests of the two types of creditor were fundamentally different. The interest of a creditor of a beneficiary was to ensure that the beneficiary received what was due to him or her under the will or on an intestacy. The interest of a creditor of an estate was to ensure that there was due administration of the estate, he was not interested in which beneficiary received what.

3) The question of whether a person had a sufficient interest in an estate was a question of procedural law, not substantive law.

MASTER OF THE ROLLS: [1] The appellant (H) and the respondent (W) are divorced. As part of their divorce settlement, they agreed that, if W were to inherit more than £100,000 from her mother, she would keep the £100,000 and the balance would be split equally between H and herself. On her death, W’s mother …

Continue reading "Randall v Randall [2016] EWCA Civ 494"