Case digest…

Evans & Another v HSBC Trust Company (UK) Limited & Others [2005] WTLR1289

In this case, Martha Evans, the deceased, left a partial intestacy upon her death. Her estate passed largely to her three sisters. The deceased had, however, during her lifetime, taken in a child wartime evacuee called Doreen (who was still living at the time of the deceased’s death) who was treated as her daughter (the deceased was otherwise childless) and who remained in Wales.

Doreen married one Alun in Wales and they had two children Kevin and Clive. Kevin and Clive were treated as the natural grandchildren of the deceased.

Kevin and Clive were both very committed to their ‘grandmother’. Kevin gave up a job in Cardiff to work nearby in west Wales. He also gave up the opportunity to buy a certain investment property and purchased a house in a rather more financially stretching area than he would have done otherwise.

This was because he was consistently told that he would be inheriting half of the deceased’s estate. Similarly, Clive borrowed money from his brother, which he would not otherwise have borrowed, and purchased another property on the assurance that he would inherit half of the deceased’s estate.

It was accepted by the High Court that the ‘grandchildren’ had repeated representations made to them that they would inherit the whole of the deceased’s estate. They had both acted to their detriment in reliance upon the indications made by her.

It was a substantial detriment. It was considered to be unjust and inequitable to pass the entire residuary estate between the deceased’s sisters. There was sufficient detriment suffered so that would be considered unconscionable. It was clear the claimants had relied upon the statements given by the deceased that they would inherit.

The first claimant, Kevin, was awarded £100,000 and the second claimant, Clive, was awarded £80,000. He had already received £20,000 from the deceased during his lifetime.

It should be noted that Doreen, the claimant’s mother, inherited a property called Glennydd in which the deceased lived, hence the only partial nature of the intestacy.

Once again, proprietary estoppel – an increasingly popular legal principle – was the basis of the equitable claim against the deceased’s estate.