King v The Chiltern Dog Rescue & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The present appeal concerns a dispute between a claimant and several charities who were beneficiaries under a deceased's will. The deceased, a single woman and former police officer, owned a house at 12 Kingcroft Road, Harpenden, valued at approximately £350,000. She had made a will in 1998 leaving the bulk of her estate to seven animal welfare charities. The claimant, the deceased's nephew, alleged that the deceased had made a donatio mortis causa (DMC) transferring the house to him shortly before her death. Alternatively, the claimant sought reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act) on the basis that he was maintained by the deceased.

The claimant asserted that during the last months of the deceased's life, she handed him the title deeds to her house and made statements indicating the house would be his upon her death. The deceased also signed several documents attempting to give the claimant the property, but none complied with the formalities of the Wills Act 1837. After the deceased's death in April 2011, the claimant initiated proceedings seeking a declaration of a valid DMC or, alternatively, reasonable financial provision of £75,000 from the estate.

The trial judge found in favor of the claimant, holding that a valid DMC had been made and that the claimant became the legal and beneficial owner of the property upon the deceased's death. In the alternative, the judge awarded £75,000 under the 1975 Act. The charities appealed against the finding of a valid DMC and challenged the award under the 1975 Act. The claimant cross-appealed seeking an increased award under the 1975 Act.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the deceased's words and conduct in the months before her death gave rise to a valid donatio mortis causa transferring her house to the claimant.
2. Whether the deceased had the requisite capacity to make a DMC.
3. Whether the purported DMC was revoked by subsequent ineffective wills signed by the deceased.
4. Whether the claimant was entitled to reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, and if so, the appropriate amount.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Charities') Arguments

• The trial judge erred in accepting the claimant's evidence, which was undermined by his criminal record and instances of dishonesty, including alleged forgery.
• The deceased's words and conduct did not satisfy the requirements for a valid DMC.
• The deceased lacked capacity to make a DMC.
• The purported DMC was revoked by the ineffective wills subsequently prepared by the deceased.
• The award of £75,000 under the 1975 Act was excessive; a maximum of £40,000 would be justified.
• They invited the court to overrule or distinguish the decision in Vallee v Birchwood, which they argued was wrongly decided.

Respondent's (Claimant's) Arguments

• The trial judge's acceptance of the claimant's evidence was correct despite the claimant's background.
• The deceased's words and handing over of title deeds constituted a valid DMC under established legal principles.
• The deceased had capacity to make the DMC.
• The ineffective wills did not revoke the DMC.
• If the DMC claim failed, the claimant was entitled to reasonable financial provision, and the award under the 1975 Act should be increased to £150,000.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Sen v Headley [1991] Ch 425	Recognition of DMC in respect of real property; delivery of dominion by handing over keys and deeds.	Applied to hold that handing over title deeds constituted delivery of dominion over unregistered land, satisfying DMC requirements.
Vallee v Birchwood [2013] EWHC 1449 (Ch); [2014] Ch 271	Consideration of DMC elements and whether contemplation of death was satisfied.	Initially followed by the trial judge but ultimately rejected by the Court of Appeal as wrongly decided regarding contemplation of death.
Cosnahan v Grice (1862) 15 Moo PC 215	Requirement for strict scrutiny and clear, unequivocal evidence in DMC claims.	Reiterated the need for strict proof to avoid abuse of DMC doctrine.
In Re Beaumont [1902] 1 Ch 889	Nature of DMC as an amphibious gift; requirement of intention and delivery.	Used to explain the legal nature of DMC and the need for clear intention that gift takes effect on death.
Wilkes v Allington [1931] 2 Ch 104	Three requirements for valid DMC: contemplation of death, delivery of subject matter, and conditional gift.	Set out the foundational requirements for DMC applied in this case.
In Re Craven's Estate [1937] 1 Ch 423	Clarification that contemplation of death means death in near future from an identified cause; importance of parting with dominion.	Applied to assess whether the deceased contemplated impending death and had parted with dominion.
Birch v Treasury Solicitor [1951] 1 Ch 298	DMC requires delivery of indicia of title; courts must guard against use of DMC to validate ineffective wills.	Reinforced limits on DMC and requirement for delivery of title documents.
Jones v Selby (1710) Prec. Chanc. 300	Early case emphasizing strict proof and risk of abuse in DMC claims.	Referred to as authority stressing need for caution and strict scrutiny.
Tate v Hilbert (1793) 2 Ves 111	Application of Roman law principles to English law DMC; failure due to inability to satisfy requirements.	Historical precedent illustrating strict requirements for DMC.
Cain v Moon [1896] 2 QB 283	Definition of requirements for DMC including delivery and contemplation of death.	Adopted in Wilkes v Allington and referenced in case law analysis.
Assicurazioni Generali SpA v Arab Insurance Group [2002] EWCA Civ 1642; E I Dupont de Nemours v ST Dupont [2003] EWCA Civ 1368; Cook v Thomas [2010] EWCA Civ 227	Standards for appellate interference with findings of fact.	Invoked to support reluctance to overturn trial judge’s findings of fact absent clear error.
In re Key, deceased [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch); [2010] 1 WLR 2020	Capacity to make a DMC and burden of proof considerations.	Referenced in relation to capacity and burden of proof; court found no error in trial judge’s approach.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed review of the law on donatio mortis causa, emphasizing its anomalous nature and the strict requirements that must be satisfied for a valid DMC. These are:

• The donor must contemplate impending death from a specific cause in the near future.
• The gift must be conditional upon the donor's death and revocable if the donor survives.
• The donor must deliver dominion over the subject matter to the donee.

The court rejected the trial judge's reliance on Vallee v Birchwood, concluding that the first requirement—contemplation of impending death—was not met in the present case. The deceased was not suffering from any fatal illness nor facing imminent death when she made the statements and handed over the deeds four to six months before her death. The deceased’s subsequent attempts to make wills, albeit ineffective, evidenced an intention to dispose of the property by will rather than by DMC, undermining the claim that a DMC had been made.

However, the court accepted that the delivery of the title deeds to the claimant satisfied the requirement of delivery of dominion. The deceased was found to have had capacity to make a DMC, and there was no convincing evidence that the purported gift was revoked.

Despite doubts about the claimant’s credibility and honesty, the court assumed the trial judge’s findings of fact were unassailable for the purposes of this appeal. Nonetheless, on the facts as found, the essential legal requirements for a valid DMC were not fulfilled.

Regarding the claimant’s alternative claim under the 1975 Act, the court found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of reasonable financial provision at £75,000. The court declined to increase or reduce this sum, noting that the evaluation of relevant factors was a matter for the first instance court and no legal error or improper valuation had been demonstrated.

Holding and Implications

The Court of Appeal allowed the charities’ appeal on the principal issue, holding that the facts did not establish a valid donatio mortis causa. Accordingly, the trial judge’s declaration that the claimant was the legal and beneficial owner of the property by virtue of a DMC was set aside.

The claimant’s alternative claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 was upheld, and the award of £75,000 was affirmed.

The decision means that the deceased’s 1998 will, which left the bulk of her estate to the seven animal charities, remains effective in respect of the property. The claimant will receive a lump sum from the estate but will not acquire ownership of the house.

No new precedent was established beyond clarifying that the contemplation of impending death for a valid DMC requires a specific and near-future cause of death, and that Vallee v Birchwood was wrongly decided on this point. The ruling reinforces the need for strict scrutiny of DMC claims to prevent circumvention of statutory formalities governing wills and property transfers.