White v Williams

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns a Part 8 claim seeking directions regarding the distribution of the estate of the deceased, who died on 11 June 2023, leaving a will dated 31 March 2014 ("the Will"). The claimant is the sole executor of the Will, granted probate on 6 October 2023, with the net estate valued at £393,974. The defendant is the deceased’s son and a beneficiary under the Will. The Will provides for two pecuniary legacies totaling £20,000 and divides the residuary estate into six equal parts, each held on trust for six named beneficiaries, including the defendant.

The defendant was estranged from the deceased and effectively refused to accept his one-sixth share of the residuary estate, valued at over £60,000. Despite being sent a Notice of Disclaimer, he did not return a signed copy. The claim was commenced on 22 January 2024, but the defendant did not acknowledge service or respond. On 29 May 2024, the court recorded that the defendant had by conduct shown an intention to disclaim his entitlement.

The legal issue arose as to whether the defendant’s share should devolve to the other five beneficiaries under the Will’s substitutionary clause or pass on partial intestacy to intestacy beneficiaries. The intestacy beneficiaries include three individuals, two of whom are also beneficiaries under the Will but would receive a larger share if the share devolved on intestacy. The claimant was directed to notify these intestacy beneficiaries, none of whom filed acknowledgements of service.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the defendant’s disclaimer constitutes a "failure" of the gift under clause 6(b) of the Will, triggering the substitutionary gift to the other beneficiaries.
2. If not, whether the defendant’s share lapses and passes to intestacy beneficiaries under the rules of intestacy.
3. The scope and effect of section 33A of the Wills Act 1837 concerning disclaimers and whether it treats the disclaiming beneficiary as having predeceased the testator for all purposes of the Will.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the Will’s substitutionary clauses, particularly clause 6(b), which provides for the redistribution of any share that "fails" to the other shares. The court considered whether a disclaimer by the defendant constitutes such a "failure". It concluded that the natural and ordinary meaning of "failure" includes a disclaimer, even if the disclaimer occurs after the testator’s death.

The court also considered the effect of section 33A of the Wills Act 1837, which treats a person disclaiming a gift as having died immediately before the testator for the purposes of the Act. However, the court found it unnecessary to decide whether this applies for all purposes of interpreting the Will or whether statutory rectification is appropriate.

If the defendant is treated as having predeceased the testator, his substitutionary gift to his children would also fail as he had no children, thus clause 6(b) would again apply to redistribute the share among the other residuary beneficiaries.

Accordingly, whether or not section 33A applies broadly, the defendant’s share falls to be divided among the other five residuary beneficiaries under clause 6(a).

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court held that the defendant’s one-sixth share of the residuary estate falls to be divided between the other beneficiaries of the residuary estate under clause 6(a) of the Will.

Implications: This decision resolves the distribution of the estate in light of the defendant’s disclaimer, applying the substitutionary provisions of the Will. No new precedent was established; the ruling clarifies the application of substitutionary clauses in the context of disclaimers and statutory provisions. The intestacy beneficiaries do not receive the defendant’s share, and the estate is distributed according to the Will’s substitutionary scheme.