- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Henry v Henry
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an application by the Plaintiff for discovery of a will made by the First Defendant in the months following November 1994. The Plaintiff, his late father, and brother were farmers in partnership until 1992. After the father's road accident in 1994, he purportedly agreed with the Plaintiff to apportion land, specifically the home farm at Folio no 4432, to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff provided farm services in reliance on this agreement until the father's death in 2005. The First Defendant, the Plaintiff's mother and personal representative of the deceased father's estate, was registered as joint tenant of the lands in December 1995 following a transfer from the deceased father. The Plaintiff believes the First Defendant made a will around January 1995 that would corroborate his claim that the home farm was intended for him rather than the Second Defendant, the Plaintiff's brother.
The Plaintiff seeks discovery of this will, arguing its relevance to the issues in the action. The First Defendant acknowledges the existence of the will but refuses to disclose its contents, claiming legal professional privilege. The court must determine whether the executed will of a living person is protected by legal professional privilege.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the executed will of a living person is protected by legal professional privilege.
- Whether the court may order discovery of such a will for the purpose of fairly disposing of the action or saving costs.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Plaintiff seeks discovery of any will made by the First Defendant after November 1994, arguing it is relevant to his claim regarding the disposition of the home farm.
- The Plaintiff relies on Section 67(2) of the Judicature (NI) Act 1978, which empowers the court to enforce orders requiring the production of testamentary documents.
- Confidentiality does not equate to immunity from discovery, citing Science Research Council v Nassé.
- The Plaintiff acknowledges that documents related to drafting the will are privileged but contends that the executed will itself is not privileged.
- The Plaintiff accepts that discovery under Order 26 or on trial would raise the same privilege issue.
- The Plaintiff relies on In the Estate of Hester Harvey as precedent supporting discovery of a will, though the testator’s status at the time is disputed.
First Defendant's Arguments
- The First Defendant, represented by counsel, does not deny the existence of the will but refuses to disclose its contents, asserting legal professional privilege.
- Argues that instructions to the solicitor and draft wills are privileged, but the question is whether privilege extends to the executed will.
- Relies on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Geffen v Goodman Estate suggesting an instrument analogous to a will may be privileged in the testator’s lifetime, though this is only obiter dictum and implicit.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Science Research Council v Nassé [1980] AC 1029 (HL) | Confidentiality of a document does not grant immunity from discovery. | Supported the court’s view that confidentiality alone does not protect the will from discovery. |
| R v Derby Magistrates Court, ex parte B [1996] 1 AC 487 | Legal professional privilege is absolute and protects confidential communications between client and lawyer. | Emphasized the absolute nature of privilege but distinguished between advice and executed documents. |
| Greenhough v Gaskell (1833) 1 M. & 98 | Privilege applies even where legal proceedings are not yet contemplated. | Supported the principle that privilege extends beyond litigation context. |
| Balabel v India [1988] 1 Ch 317 | Scope of legal professional privilege includes documents made confidentially for legal advice, but not all communications are privileged; executed conveyances are not privileged. | Used to distinguish between draft wills (privileged) and executed wills (not privileged). |
| R (Morgan Grenville and Company Limited) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax [2003] 1 AC 563 | Legal professional privilege is a fundamental human right; privilege extends beyond litigation; privilege is absolute and confidential communications are essential. | Reinforced the absolute and confidential nature of privilege and its limits in the probate context. |
| Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6) [2005] 1 AC 610 | Legal advice privilege covers advice given in a relevant legal context, extending beyond litigation to inquiries. | Clarified that privilege applies to seeking and giving legal advice, not to the final product (e.g., executed documents). |
| In the Estate of Hester Harvey [1907] P 239 | Suggested that testamentary documents may be subject to discovery. | Considered by the court but noted that the testator was not alive at the time in that case. |
| Geffen v Goodman Estate (1991) 81 DLR (4th) 211 | Suggested, obiter, that an instrument analogous to a will may be privileged in the testator's lifetime. | Noted but regarded as obiter dictum and not binding. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the nature and scope of legal professional privilege, emphasizing its absolute protection of confidential communications between client and lawyer. It acknowledged that instructions to solicitors and draft wills are privileged as they constitute legal advice. However, the court distinguished the executed will as a legal document whose character changes upon execution, becoming a testamentary instrument subject to normal rules of discovery and confidentiality.
Drawing on statutory provisions in the Administration of Estates (NI) Order 1979, the court noted the explicit power to require lodging of testamentary documents in the Probate and Matrimonial Office, indicating that such documents are not purely private. The court also considered relevant case law, including authorities emphasizing the absolute nature of privilege but recognizing that privilege protects communications and advice, not the final executed document.
The court found that the executed will, by its nature and legal effect, ceases to be privileged. It reasoned that once the testator has acted on legal advice by executing the will, the document itself is no longer protected by privilege, although confidentiality remains a factor. The court proposed to receive the will for inspection and to disclose only those parts relevant to the issues in the action, maintaining confidentiality of irrelevant portions.
Holding and Implications
The court ORDERED the disclosure of the executed will to the court for examination. Only those parts relevant to the material issues in the action shall be disclosed to the Plaintiff, with all other parts remaining confidential.
The decision clarifies that an executed will of a living testator is not protected by legal professional privilege, distinguishing it from privileged communications and draft wills. The ruling directly affects the parties by permitting limited discovery of the will relevant to the dispute, but it does not establish a broad new precedent beyond the facts presented.
Alert